State v. Atwood

Decision Date09 April 1992
Docket NumberNo. CR-87-0135-AP,CR-87-0135-AP
Citation171 Ariz. 576,832 P.2d 593
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Frank Jarvis ATWOOD, Appellant.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Grant Woods, Atty. Gen. by Bruce M. Ferg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for appellee.

Carla G. Ryan, Tucson, for appellant.

           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                DISPOSITION ........................ 591
                ISSUES PRESENTED ON DIRECT APPEAL .. 591
                ISSUES PRESENTED ON CROSS-APPEAL ... 592
                THE LENGTH OF THIS OPINION ......... 592
                FACTS .............................. 592
                I.    The Disappearance ............ 592
                II.   The Preliminary Investigation  592
                III.  The Suspect .................. 593
                IV.   The Arrest ................... 593
                V.    The Charges Against Defendant ....................................... 594
                VI.   The Case Against Defendant .......................................... 594
                      A.    The Sightings ................................................. 595
                      B.    The Scientific Evidence ....................................... 595
                      C.    The Defendant's Actions and Statements ........................ 595
                      D.    The Evidence of Motive ........................................ 596
                

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES PRESENTED ON DIRECT APPEAL

1.    Sufficiency of Evidence to Support the Convictions .................. 596
                      A.    The Kidnapping ................................................ 597
                      B.    The Murder .................................................... 598
                2.    Alleged Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ........................... 599
                3.    Eyewitness Identifications .......................................... 602
                      A.    Media Exposure ................................................ 602
                      B.    Other Pretrial Viewings ....................................... 603
                4.    Denial of Exhumation ................................................ 604
                5.    Alleged Prosecutorial and Police Misconduct ......................... 605
                      A.    Alleged Investigative Misconduct
                             1.    Burial of Victim's Remains ............................. 605
                             2.    Police Investigation ................................... 605
                             3.    The "Cuckoo File" ...................................... 606
                      B.    Alleged Misconduct Before the Grand Jury ...................... 607
                      C.    Alleged Prosecutorial Contact with the Media .................. 607
                      D.    Alleged Trial Misconduct ...................................... 608
                             1.    Witness's Reference to Polygraph ....................... 608
                             2.    Emotional Witness ...................................... 609
                             3.    Testimony of Victim's Mother ........................... 609
                             4.    Testimony Concerning Underpants Found Near Victim's
                                     Remains .............................................. 609
                             5.    Comments Made by Prosecutor ............................ 610
                6.    Consolidation and Severance ......................................... 611
                7.    Defendant's Arrest, Detention and Interrogation, and the Searches
                        of Defendant's Car
                      A.    The Arrest .................................................... 613
                      B.    The Detention and Interrogation ............................... 615
                      C.    The Searches .................................................. 616
                             1.    The First Search ....................................... 616
                             2.    The Second Search ...................................... 618
                      D.    Defendant's Statements to the FBI ............................. 618
                8.    Defendant's Motion for Continuance .................................. 620
                9.    Jury Selection ...................................................... 621
                10.   "Death Qualification" of Jury ....................................... 624
                11.   Jury Instructions ................................................... 624
                      A.    Kidnapping Instruction ........................................ 624
                      B.    Felony Murder Instruction ..................................... 625
                      C.    Unanimous Verdict Instruction ................................. 625
                      D.    Denial of Willits Instructions ................................ 626
                      E.    Denial of Unlawful Imprisonment Instruction ................... 628
                      F.    Denial of Instructions on Lesser Included Offenses of First
                              Degree Murder ............................................... 629
                12, 13 and 14.  Publicity and the Jury ..................................... 630
                15.   Publicity and Fair Trial ............................................ 630
                16.   Courtroom Decorum ................................................... 633
                17.   Evidentiary Rulings ................................................. 634
                      A.    Defendant's Statements
                             1.    Defendant's Story ...................................... 635
                             2.    Defendant's Statement on the Telephone ................. 636
                      B
                      Defendant's Letter and Statements to Ernest Bernsienne                637
                      C
                      Testimony of Paul Larmour                                             639
                      D
                      Testimony of Sam Hall                                                 640
                      E
                      Limitation on Cross-Examination of James Corby                        640
                      F
                      Admission of Defendant's Knives                                       641
                      G.
                      Admission of Underpants                                               642
                      H.
                      Videotapes of Defendant in Custody                                    643
                18.   The Death Sentence .................................................. 645
                      A.    Constitutionality of Arizona's Death Penalty Statute .......... 646
                      B.    Defendant's 1975 Conviction for Lewd and Lascivious Conduct
                              as an Aggravating Circumstance .............................. 646
                      C.    The Trial Court's Finding of No Mitigating Circumstances
                              under A.R.S. § 13-703(G) .................................... 648
                             1.    The Trial Court's Felony Murder Instruction ...........  648
                                   a.   The Felony Murder Instruction ..................... 648
                                   b.   The Trial Judge's Failure to Make Specific
                                          Enmund/McDaniel Findings ........................ 649
                             2.    Defendant's Heavy Drug Use ............................. 650
                             3.    Defendant's Demeanor During Trial ...................... 651
                             4.    Defendant's Parents' Support ........................... 652
                             5.    The Cause of the Victim's Death Was Not Established .... 652
                             6.    Defendant's Age ........................................ 652
                             7.    Lingering Doubt of Guilt ............................... 653
                             8.    Defendant's Cooperation at the Time of His Arrest ...... 653
                             9.    Defendant's Sympathy for the Victim's Family ........... 653
                            10.    Defendant's I.Q......................................... 653
                            11.    Defendant's Concern for His Parents .................... 654
                            12.    Defendant's Lack of a Violent Prior Record ............. 654
                            13.    Defendant's Not Causing His Prior Felonies ............. 655
                            14.    Defendant's Adjustment to Incarceration andHis
                                     Adoption of New Goals ................................ 655
                      D.    Victim Impact Evidence ........................................ 655
                      E.    Conclusion .................................................... 657
                19.   The Kidnapping Sentence ............................................. 657
                20.   Computerization of the Record ....................................... 657
                21.   Limitation on Length of Defendant's Opening Brief ................... 658
                DISCUSSION OF ISSUES PRESENTED ON CROSS-APPEAL ............................ 659
                22.   The Informant's Testimony ........................................... 659
                23.   The Especially Heinous, Cruel, or Depraved Aggravating Circumstance . 660
                24.   The Rule in Gillies ................................................. 660
                CONCLUSION ................................................................ 660
                SPECIAL CONCURRENCE by Chief Justice Feldman .............................. 660
                SPECIAL CONCURRENCE by Justice Corcoran ................................... 660
                I.    The Enmund/McDaniel Finding ......................................... 660
                II.   The Kidnapping Sentence ............................................. 661
                III.  The Informant's Testimony ........................................... 663
                      A.    The Facts Surrounding Defendant's Incarceration, the Dates on
                              Which the State Charged Defendant with Kidnapping and
                              Murder, and the Trial Court's Ruling on Defendant's Motion
                              to Suppress the Informant's Testimony
                             1.    The Facts and the Dates ................................ 663
                             2.    The Trial Court's Ruling ............................... 665
                      B.    The Scope of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel and the
                              Remedy for its Violation
                             1.    The Right to Counsel ................................... 666
                             2.    The Exclusionary Rule .................................. 667
                      C.    Did the Trial Court Err in Excluding The Informant's
                              Testimony During the Guilt Proceedings Against Defendant? ... 667
                             1.    The Informant as a State Agent ......................... 668
                             2.    Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel ........... 668
                             3.    The Exclusionary Rule .................................. 668
                      D.    Did the Trial Court Err in Excluding The Informant's
                              Testimony During the Sentencing Proceedings Against
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
376 cases
  • State Of Ariz. v. Garcia
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 18, 2010
    ...absence of state action, the trial court should have analyzed the reliability of Anderson's identification under State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 603, 832 P.2d 593, 620 (1992) (stating that “unnecessarily suggestive government identification procedures are [not] the sine qua non of due proce......
  • State v. Meza
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 2022
    ...Supreme court held that persons excused because of hardship are not a "cognizable group," and other courts agree. State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 622, 832 P.2d 593 (1992) ; People v. Tafoya, 42 Cal. 4th 147, 169, 164 P.3d 590, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 163, 187 (2007) ; Atwood v. Schriro, 489 F. Sup......
  • State v. West
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1993
    ...rejected this argument before. See State v. Cruz, 175 Ariz. 395, 400-401, 857 P.2d 1249, 1254-1255 (1993); State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 658-59, 832 P.2d 593, 675-76 (1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1084, 113 S.Ct. 1058, 122 L.Ed.2d 364 (1993); State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 182-83, 80......
  • State v. King
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • November 3, 1994
    ...prove the existence of this mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 13-703(C); State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 648, 832 P.2d 593, 665 (1992). To prove that his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requiremen......
  • Get Started for Free
21 books & journal articles
  • Rule 401 Definition of "Relevant Evidence."
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Courtroom Evidence Manual Article 4 Relevancy and Its Limits (Rules 401 to 411)
    • Invalid date
    ...defendant acted in an especially heinous or depraved manner, letter showing defendant's state of mind was material). State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 832 P.2d 593 (1992) (because defendant had blood on his hands and clothes and explained this by saying he had stabbed someone in drug transact......
  • TV or not TV - that is the question.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 86 No. 3, March 1996
    • March 22, 1996
    ...(Fla. 1979); State v. McNaught, 713 P.2d 457 (Kan. 1986); The Minnesota Study, supra note 210, at 11. (245) See, e.g., State v. Atwood, 832 P.2d 593, 647-48 (Ariz. 1992) (en banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1084 (1993). (246) See, e.g., Bradley v. Texas, 470 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1972); Bell v. P......
  • Cases Cited: Arizona Supreme Court.
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Arizona Supreme Court Part H Cases Cited(Chapter 68. - 69.) 69. Cases Cited: Arizona Supreme Court.
    • Invalid date
    ...productive member of society, good character) (for Rossi II, see 154 Ariz. 245) (cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1003 (1992)).• State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 832 P.2d 593 (1992) (death penalty affirmed) (the defendant kidnaped a young girl who was on her bicycle, and took her to the desert and sex......
  • Rule 801 Definitions
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Courtroom Evidence Manual Article 8 Hearsay (Rules 801 to 806)
    • Invalid date
    ...out-of-court statement that is nonhearsay does not violate the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 832 P.2d 593 (1992) (because defendant had adopted out-of-court statement, it was nonhearsay, and thus did not violate Confrontation Clause)......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT