State v. Hannah

• Decision Date: 27 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 13737-PR,13737-PR
• Citation: State v. Hannah, 583 P.2d 888, 120 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 1978)
• Parties: STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. The Honorable J. Richard HANNAH, Judge of the Superior Court of Pima County, State of Arizona, Respondent, and Moshen FARHANG, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 888

583 P.2d 888

120 Ariz. 1

STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. The Honorable J. Richard HANNAH, Judge of the Superior Court of Pima County, State of Arizona, Respondent and Moshen FARHANG, Real Party in Interest.

No. 13737-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

June 27, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1978.

Stephen D. Neely, Pima County Atty. by Paul S. Banales, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, for petitioner.

Hirsh & Shiner by Robert J. Hirsh, Tucson, for respondent Farhang.

STRUCKMEYER, Vice Chief Justice.

This matter arises out of a special action filed in the Court of Appeals, Division Two, seeking to set aside three orders of respondent Judge, J. Richard Hannah; the first, an order dismissing Count One of a criminal indictment against respondent, Moshen Farhang, real party in interest; the second, an order vacating the denial of a motion for a continuance; and the third, an order vacating an order dismissing Count Two of the indictment.

Farhang was indicted for arson, second degree, Count One, and filing a fraudulent insurance claim, Count Two. The charges stemmed from a fire in a Tucson, Arizona bar on October 15, 1976. Certain items were seized by the Tucson Police Department at the scene of the fire and placed in the custody of its property department. No request was made by Farhang for an examination of the seized items until shortly before the trial in October of 1977. At that time, Farhang requested that the seized items be produced for examination by defense experts. It was then found that the seized property had been inadvertently destroyed at the direction of a property review panel composed of three officers of the police department.

In the Superior Court, Farhang filed a motion to dismiss Count One based upon denial of due process because the destruction of the evidence deprived him of the right to an independent examination from which exculpatory evidence might be obtained. The Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss. The State then sought a continuation of the trial on Count Two, the fraudulent insurance claim, for the reason it was appealing the dismissal of the arson charge. When this motion was denied, the State moved to dismiss Count Two without prejudice because the two charges were so interrelated that it would be prejudicial to it if required to go to trial on Count Two alone. The Superior Court dismissed Count Two, but dismissed it with prejudice. This special action was filed in the Court of Appeals, Division Two. Jurisdiction was declined, and a petition for review was filed in this Court. We accepted jurisdiction, as we were then considering Cause No. 13633, State v. Hughes and Willie J. Soloman, Jr., 118 Ariz. ---, 580 P.2d 722 (1978), which...