State v. Chaney

• Decision Date: 26 July 1984
• Docket Number: No. 5894,5894
• Citation: 686 P.2d 1265,141 Ariz. 295
• Parties: STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Anthony Lee CHANEY, aka Allan Saunders-Coleman, aka Alan Coleman, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 1265

686 P.2d 1265

141 Ariz. 295

STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v.Anthony Lee CHANEY, aka Allan Saunders-Coleman, aka Alan Coleman, Appellant.

No. 5894.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

July 26, 1984.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III, and Diane M. Ramsey, Asst. Attys.Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

William B. Hurst, Flagstaff, for appellant.

HAYS, Justice.

Appellant, Anthony Lee Chaney, was tried by jury and found guilty of first degree murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count each of burglary and theft.He was sentenced to 28 years imprisonment for the kidnapping; 21 years for the aggravated assault; 28 years for one count of armed robbery; 28 years for the other count of armed robbery; 20 years for burglary; and 11.5 years for theft; each sentence is to run consecutively to the previous sentence.He was sentenced to death for the murder conviction.We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3);andA.R.S. §§ 13-4031,4035.

FACTS

Chaney and his "wife," Deanna (he was married to another when he"married" the woman who was also his codefendant) were out of Arizona when their crime spree began.They burgled several homes in other states before entering Arizona.At one home they found several guns which they took.After leaving and driving some distance, Chaney decided to re-burgle that home to make sure he did not miss any weapons.Chaney was described as a "gun nut," who knew quite a bit about them.

In New Mexico they were burgling a home when they discovered a late-model black Ford pickup with plates bearing the letters WMD.They transferred their booty to the truck and left their own vehicle somewhere in New Mexico.

They entered Arizona as the 1982 Labor Day Holiday began.They heard that DPS was setting up roadblocks to check for drunk drivers and they did not want to be stopped, so they decided to find a rural area and camp until the holiday was over.Later, a Coconino County sheriff's deputy saw them and, because it was unusual to see people camping there, he decided to investigate.As the deputy approached the campsite, he called in the description of the vehicle and its plates.He drove up behind the pickup and he exited his vehicle.He asked Chaney for identification, and Chaney said it was in his truck and that he would retrieve it.The deputy talked to Deanna and suddenly Chaney was back with a gun pointed at the deputy's head.Deanna took the deputy's side arm.Chaney told Deanna to give him the AR-15 rifle (the civilian version of the M-16).While Chaney was pointing the rifle at the deputy, he told the deputy to kneel.The deputy complied and, in fear of losing his life, began talking to Chaney in hopes of avoiding death.He told Chaney about his family and also that Chaney could handcuff him to a tree and thereby escape.

While this was going on, the dispatcher determined that the pickup was stolen and tried to inform the deputy.When there was no answer, the dispatcher called a second officer, who would be the victim, to investigate.Because the area is rural, there was some difficulty in locating the first deputy's exact position.Chaney, who said he needed "more control" of the situation, handcuffed the first deputy to the tree, told Deanna to disable the two-way radio in the deputy's vehicle, and took its keys.Chaney and Deanna drove off.When he felt it was safe, the deputy took out a spare key and unhandcuffed himself and ran to the radio.

At the same time, the victim was progressing slowly up the dirt road, checking areas along the way.Suddenly he saw Chaney's vehicle.He called in and asked, "Black Ford pickup?"Chaney stopped his vehicle, jumped out with the AR-15 in hand and fired it while advancing on the deputy's vehicle.The first deputy was talking with the dispatcher describing the assailants when he heard the gunfire; he grabbed his shotgun and ran towards the gunfire.

The victim threw himself to the seat to avoid the bullets as Chaney began firing.Over thirty bullets were fired.Glass and other debris were flying around the vehicle and over two hundred objects struck the deputy.One of the bullets nearly severed the deputy's left arm.Finally, Chaney was within nine feet of the deputy and to his rear.Chaney fired again, leaving powder burns on the victim's body.

Chaney returned to the truck, and he told Deanna: "Murder One" and "reload."As they were leaving, Deanna saw the victim try to drive his car, but he could not.

The victim, who was a doctor and only a part-time deputy, was conscious for about thirty minutes after the attack.When the medics arrived he told them: "I'm dying, I'm dying" and "I can't breathe."

Chaney saw two boys in another pickup later in the same general area.He decided to take their pickup because the police had a description of his.Deanna went to the passenger window of the boys' pickup and began talking with them.Chaney came up to the driver's side, pointed his gun at the driver and told the boys to get out.They were told to kneel next to the truck.After transferring their booty, Chaney told the boys to run.They did but dodged behind trees when they could because both feared a bullet in the back.Before telling the boys to run, Chaney told them that he had handcuffed one deputy to a tree and had shot another.

Chaney headed to Flagstaff to put gas in the pickup he had just stolen.Within minutes the police were in contact with the boys and sent out a description of the new vehicle.In Flagstaff the police spotted the vehicle but hoped to allow Chaney to leave Flagstaff before attempting an arrest.There were many police cars in the area and Chaney remarked that he was in their midst and they did not realize it.Soon the police realized that surprise was gone and they moved in.After arrest, Chaney asked how the deputy was doing, to which the arresting officer said "shut up."

On appeal, Chaney raises issues relevant basically only to the murder conviction.

JURY ISSUES

Chaney argues that failing to grant his motion for change of venue was reversible error.We disagree.

This case received extensive coverage in the media in the Flagstaff area, where the crime occurred.Almost all the jurors, on voir dire, indicated they had heard about the murder.

The murder also aroused a feeling of remorse in the members of the community.The victim was a young medical doctor and was an on-duty reserve deputy when he was shot.His patrol car was riddled with bullets; he was shot several times, and his body was struck over two hundred times by flying glass and other objects.Many members of the venire panel expressed regret that the victim died and the manner of death.

A defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial trial.SeeState v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 150, 163, 624 P.2d 828, 841, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 364, 70 L.Ed.2d 191(1981).This is guaranteed by the United States Constitution,U.S. Const. amends. 5, 14, and the Arizona Constitution,Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 4.Motions for change of venue are made under 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 10.3.The standard under which these motions are judged is commensurate with the constitutional standard, seeState v. Smith, 123 Ariz. 231, 236, 599 P.2d 187, 192(1979); that is, whether the individual "juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court."Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1643, 6 L.Ed.2d 751(1961).

When publicity pervades the court proceedings to the extent the proceedings have a "carnival atmosphere,"Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600(1966), prejudice is presumed, State v. Smith, supra, 123 Ariz. at 236, 599 P.2d at 192.Circumstances analogous to Sheppard, supra, or Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543(1965), have not been alleged by Chaney.

In other cases concerning alleged prejudicial publicity, the defendant has the burden of proving that the information disseminated concerning the act for which he is tried probably will have the result of depriving him of a fair trial.Rule 10.3(b);State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 526, 534, 633 P.2d 335, 343(1981).Defendant must show that the jurors have formed preconceived notions concerning the defendant's guilt and that they cannot lay those notions aside.State v. Mulligan, 126 Ariz. 210, 214, 613 P.2d 1266, 1270(1980);Irvin v. Dowd, supra, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S.Ct. at 1642-43("mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is ... [insufficient] to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality ....").It follows that prior knowledge of a case is not sufficient, standing alone, to disqualify a juror.State v. Smith, supra, 123 Ariz. at 236, 599 P.2d at 192.We note that the prejudicial effect, not the extensiveness, of the publicity is the key.Greenawalt, supra.Change of venue will not be granted if the court finds that the jurors can lay aside any preconceived notion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented during trial.State v. Smith, supra;Irvin v. Dowd, supra.The trial court's decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.State v. Ferrari, 112 Ariz. 324, 332, 541 P.2d 921, 929(1975).

We have carefully reviewed the record and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.The instant case is similar to Greenawalt, supra.In Greenawalt the voir dire took place six months after arrest.In this case the voir dire took place five months after arrest, which occurred on the same day the murder took place.Most of the jurors who knew some of the facts of this case had forgotten much of what they had read or heard.Most of the jurors told the judge they could try the case solely on the evidence presented in court.Only six jurors said they could not fairly judge this case; they were...