State v. Atwood
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FELDMAN; CORCORAN |
| Citation | State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 832 P.2d 593 (Ariz. 1992) |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-87-0135-AP,CR-87-0135-AP |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Frank Jarvis ATWOOD, Appellant. |
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 FreeStart Your 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
Start Your 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
Start Your 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
Start Your 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
Start Your 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
Start Your Free Trial
376 cases
-
State Of Ariz. v. Garcia
...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
...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
...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
...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 103 Rulings on Evidence
...whether state had sufficient evidence to ask such a question, court would not address issue for fundamental error). State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 832 P.2d 593 (1992) (because defendant did not object to underpants' admission into evidence, defendant waived that issue on appeal). State v. ......
-
§ 4.14.3 Rights of Parties - Rules 6-11.
...the appellate court reviews de novo whether a ruling on the exclusion of spectators denied a defendant a fair trial. State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 633-34, 832 P.2d 593, 650-51 (1992), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 241, ¶ 25, 25 P.3d 717, 729 (2001). Ru......
-
Rule 104 Preliminary Questions
...value. State v. Spencer, 176 Ariz. 36, 859 P.2d 146 (1993). State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 858 P.2d 1152 (1993). State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 832 P.2d 593 (1992). State v. Vickers, 159 Ariz. 532, 768 P.2d 1177 (1989). Rule 403 - Determination whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial. Sta......
-
Cases Cited: Arizona Supreme Court.
...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......
Get Started for Free