State v. Farmer

Decision Date05 September 1980
Docket NumberNo. 4753,4753
Citation617 P.2d 521,126 Ariz. 569
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Terry Lee FARMER, Appellant.
CourtArizona Supreme Court
Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer III, Chief Counsel, Crim. Div., Jessica L. Gifford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee

Wildermuth & Wildermuth, by John R. Wildermuth, Coolidge, for appellant.

HOLOHAN, Vice Chief Justice.

Appellant appeals from his convictions of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for twenty-five years for the murder conviction and received a sentence of twenty-five to thirty years for the conspiracy conviction, to be served consecutive to the life sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4031.

Appellant was indicted with ten other inmates of the Arizona State Prison on charges of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The trial court granted several motions to sever made by various defendants in the case and ultimately, appellant was tried with just one other codefendant. The jury found appellant guilty on both charges but acquitted his codefendant.

The evidence presented at trial showed that racial violence at the state prison began to increase in September of 1977. A group of prisoners known as the Aryan Brotherhood, made up of white inmates, planned to kill Waymond Small, a black inmate because he had witnessed an attack upon another black inmate by members of the Aryan Brotherhood. Small also was to testify before a committee of the state legislature concerning prison violence and gang activities.

Two former members of the Aryan Brotherhood, Dominic Hall and Danny Farrell, were given immunity from prosecution in the case and testified for the state. Hall testified that he had been ordered by the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood, Jerry Hillyer, to have Waymond Small killed. Appellant desired to join the Aryan Brotherhood, so he offered to kill the victim as a Hall asked appellant's codefendant William McDonald to make a "shank" or prison-made knife. While Farrell acted as a lookout, McDonald made the knife. This knife was later used to stab the victim Small.

means of attaining membership in that organization. Another inmate, Bill Goff, who also wanted to join the gang, volunteered to help appellant.

On the morning of November 30, 1977, McDonald accompanied appellant and Goff from their assignment at the print shop to a location near the carpenter shop where McDonald pointed out Small who was working in the license plate shop. That afternoon, appellant and Goff went to the license plate shop where appellant stabbed the victim twice in the chest and Goff hit the victim in the head with the claw end of a hammer. Goff and appellant then ran. Small grabbed the hammer and chased after them. Shortly after the attack, Small died from the wounds inflicted by his assailants.

Appellant and Goff returned to the print shop where the clothing which they had been wearing was cut up and flushed down a toilet.

Appellant raised six issues on appeal, however, we find it necessary to address only the following two issues:

1) Whether appellant's right to a speedy trial was violated;

2) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow evidence of the acquittal of three defense witnesses after the state was allowed to introduce evidence that the witnesses had been indicted on the same charges as appellant.

SPEEDY TRIAL

On appeal, appellant argues that he did not receive a speedy trial.

Appellant bases his argument upon the facts that he was named as a defendant in the complaint issued May 9, 1978; but a jury trial did not commence until May 15, 1979, which exceeded the time limits of Rules 8.2(a) and (b) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.

Appellant was one of eleven defendants charged in the indictment, all of whom were state prison inmates, each having their own attorney. After the defendants were indicted, many pretrial motions were filed by their attorneys which were primarily concerned with matters of discovery. Two of appellant's codefendants moved pursuant to Rule 8.1(e), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., to declare the case extraordinary and thereby suspend the time limits of Rule 8.2. Pursuant to the rule, findings of fact were made by the trial court and transmitted to the Chief Justice. On August 28, 1978, the Chief Justice approved the findings of the trial court and thereafter the court granted the motion to suspend the provisions of Rule 8.

Although appellant did not join in the motion to declare the case extraordinary, the appellant is bound by the suspension of the Rule 8 time limits. The delay occasioned by or on the behalf of any defendant is attributable to his codefendants in determining whether speedy trial time limits have been violated. State v. Johnson, 122 Ariz. 260, 594 P.2d 514 (1979); see also Rule 8.4(e), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. The trial court entered an order suspending the time limits prior to ordering any severance of the defendants for trial. Thus, the delay resulting from the suspension of the time limits of Rule 8, upon the motion of his codefendants, is attributable to appellant.

We note also that appellant moved for a determination of his mental competency on January 30, 1979. He was examined and then found competent to stand trial by the trial court on March 23, 1979. Appellant moved for a reexamination of his mental competency on March 26, 1979, was reexamined and again found competent on May 25, 1979. The delay occasioned in order to determine appellant's competency is excludable from consideration of whether appellant's right to a speedy trial was denied. State v. Lewis, 112 Ariz. 38, 537 P.2d 25 (1975); State v. Landrum, 112 Ariz. 555, 544 P.2d 664 (1976); State v. Castoe, 114 Ariz. 47, 559 P.2d 167 (App.1976).

In view of the many pretrial motions which were filed, the nature and complexity of the case, the time excluded for determination of appellant's mental competency and the suspension of the time limits of Rule 8; we find that there was no violation of the speedy trial time limits.

Although appellant asserts a denial of his constitutional right to speedy trial which prejudiced him because the delay curtailed his liberty within the prison and caused him a great deal of anxiety, we have reviewed the circumstances involved in the delay, and we find that under constitutional standards appellant was not denied his right to a speedy trial. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); State v. Edwards, 122 Ariz. 206, 594 P.2d 72 (1979).

EVIDENCE OF ACQUITTAL

Appellant urges that the trial court committed reversible error in precluding the defense from showing at trial that three defense witnesses had been acquitted of the same charges asserted against appellant.

Three of appellant's codefendants, Goff, Belt and Breshears, were tried and acquitted in a trial which preceded that of appellant. Prior to appellant's trial, the state made a motion in limine to preclude mention of the acquittals of witnesses Goff, Belt and Breshears in the earlier trial. The trial court granted the state's motion. At that point in the case the ruling was correct because evidence of the acquittal of codefendants is irrelevant to the determination of appellant's guilt or innocence on the charges. People v. Mayden, 71 Ill.App.3d 442, 27 Ill.Dec. 670, 389 N.E.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Johnson v. California
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 23 de fevereiro de 2005
    ...3d 1019, 1024-1025 (Utah 2002) (describing fatal stabbing of a black inmate by two white supremacists); State v. Farmer, 126 Ariz. 569, 570-571, 617 P. 2d 521, 522-523 (1980) (en banc) (describing murder of a black inmate by members and recruits of the Aryan 9. Specifically, Johnson testifi......
  • State v. Cloud
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 18 de fevereiro de 2014
    ...Rule 8 calculation for multiple defendants consolidated for trial from the case with the longest time available); State v. Farmer, 126 Ariz. 569, 571, 617 P.2d 521, 523 (1980) ("Although appellant did not join in the motion to declare the case extraordinary, the appellant is bound by the su......
  • Com. v. Haraldstad
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 25 de agosto de 1983
    ...acquittal of a person jointly charged but separately tried is not probative of the innocence of the others charged. State v. Farmer, 126 Ariz. 569, 572, 617 P.2d 521 (1980). Felts v. State, 546 P.2d 265, 266 (Okl.Cr.App.1976). There are in such cases too many variables in the parallel proce......
  • U.S. v. Silverstein
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 26 de julho de 1984
    ...1083, 1085-86 (7th Cir.1981). Another murder of a black inmate by members of the Aryan Brotherhood is recounted in State v. Farmer, 126 Ariz. 569, 617 P.2d 521 (1980). What happened in the present case could not have come as much of a surprise to the the Control Unit at Marion imposes the m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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