State v. Hill, 1114
| Decision Date | 05 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 1114,1114 |
| Citation | 330 P.2d 1088,85 Ariz. 49 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Arthur Ray HILL, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Robert Morrison, Atty. Gen., Charles C. Stidham, County Atty., Lawrence C. Cantor, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for appellant.
Flynn & Allen, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the State of Arizona, in a criminal case, from an order of the superior court granting Arthur Ray Hill's (defendant-appellee's) motion for a new trial.
By an information containing two counts the State charged defendant with (1) murder in the first degree of one Harold Joseph Kline, (2) assault with intent to commit murder on the person of Estel Cummings. The matters were jointly tried to a jury and on September 19, 1957, verdicts were rendered finding defendant guilty on count No. 1 of murder in the second degree, and guilty as charged on the second count.
In all the defendant filed three separate motions asking for a new trial, which may be summarized as follows:
The first motion was filed September 26, 1957 (seven days after the verdicts) upon the following statutory grounds: (1) misconduct of the county attorney in the prosecution of the action, (2) that the court had erred in its rulings upon matters of law arising during the course of the trial, and (3), the jury had been misdirected as to the law governing the case.
The second motion, in substance, was based upon the grounds of asserted newly-discovered evidence.
The last motion in effect supplements the first one, i. e., the grounds stated are that defendant did not receive a fair and impartial trial due to no fault of his own. Affidavits were filed both in support of and in opposition to said motions and an effort was made by defendant to excuse the delay in filing.
The pertinent Rules of Criminal Procedure, Chapter XVIII, under the hearing Motion for New Trial, 17 A.R.S., are:
'When a verdict has been rendered against the defendant, or the defendant has been found guilty by the court, the court on motion of the defendant, or on its own motion with the consent of the defendant, may grant a new trial.'
'A motion for a new trial may be made only within three days after the rendition of the verdict or the finding of the court, unless the ground of the motion is newly discovered evidence as provided in Rule 310, in which event the motion may be made within one year after the rendition of the verdict or the finding of the court, or at a later time if the court for good cause permits.'
'Rule 311. Grounds for new trial involving prejudice of substantial rights of defendant
'A. The court shall grant a new trial if any of the following grounds is established, provided the substantial rights of the defendant have been thereby prejudiced:
* * *
* * *
'5. That the county attorney has been guilty of misconduct.
'6. That the court has erred in the decision of any matter of law arising during the course of the trial.
'7. That the court has misdirected the jury on a matter of law or has refused to give a proper instruction which was requested by the defendant.
Inasmuch as the trial court apparently took no stock in the second motion--based upon newly discovered evidence--and did not predicate its ruling thereon (see, infra), we need not further consider it.
A hearing was had on the motions for new trial and at the conclusion thereof the court apparently became convinced that it had the 'inherent power' to grant a motion for new trial even though the rules as to the timely filing of such a motion had not been complied with. We quote from the Reporter's Transcript:
(p. 543) The Court: * * *'
* * *
* * *
(p. 551) 'It is ordered that the motion for a new trial be and the same is hereby granted on the ground that the substantial rights of the defendant have been prejudiced, and the misconduct of the County Attorney in putting certain impeaching questions on cross-examination to the defendant, Arthur Ray Hill, and the failure thereafter to follow up and support the impeaching questions.'
In the instant case it is apparent from the record that the court, in granting the motion for new trial, was not acting upon its own motion but predicated its ruling upon the first and third motions filed by defendant. We see no occasion to consider the merits or demerits of said motions, for it is our view that the State's first assignment of error, and first proposition of law should be determinative of this appeal. In effect the State urges that because the defendant failed to timely file his motion for new trial in accordance with the requirements of the rules, supra, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider it.
In 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1465, this statement appears:
'Time for Application.
'Motions for new trial must be made without undue delay, and within the time prescribed by an applicable statute.
* * *
* * *
'When the time arrives for making application for new trial, such application must be made without undue delay and within the time prescribed by applicable statutory provisions, limitations as to time for making application being jurisdictional. * * *'
There is a wealth of decisions from various appellate courts sustaining this principle. See: State v. McClelland, 72 N.D. 665, 10 N.W.2d 798; State v. Mound, 65 S.D. 611, 277 N.E. 35; Ex parte Watkins, 120 Cal.App.2d 586, 261 P.2d 786; State v. Neil, 58 Idaho 359, 74 P.2d 586; State v. Kenton, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 433, 434.
In the last mentioned case the Supreme Court of Missouri stated:
'Obviously, the filing of the motion out of time was violative of Rules * * * and, as we have repeatedly held, it was a nullity and preserved nothing for review.'
While the problem presented is, in this jurisdiction, a matter of first impression in the field of criminal procedure, yet by analogy we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bigger
...("The lower courts of this state are bound by law to follow the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court ...."); cf. State v. Hill , 85 Ariz. 49, 52-54, 330 P.2d 1088 (1958) (holding rules at issue "must be strictly complied with" and trial court has no authority to extend time for motion for......
-
Shinn v. Ariz. Bd. of Exec. Clemency
...post-trial motions—carries jurisdictional consequence. We agree. Indeed, our jurisprudence proves the point. See State v. Hill , 85 Ariz. 49, 54, 330 P.2d 1088 (1958) (holding that an order granting a motion for a new trial "was void for lack of jurisdiction" after being entered outside of ......
-
State v. Ortiz-Padilla
...motion and the motion has no effect. State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 70, 775 P.2d 1130, 1134 (App. 1988); see also State v. Hill, 85 Ariz. 49, 53, 330 P.2d 1088, 1090 (1958)(criminal rules of procedure with regard to motions for new trial "must be strictly complied with"). And "[l]abeling ......
-
State v. Fitzgerald
...cmt. (noting that a trial court lacks the power to grant a new trial after the Rule 24.1(b) time limit expires (citing State v. Hill, 85 Ariz. 49, 330 P.2d 1088 (1958))); State v. Hickle, 129 Ariz. 330, 332, 631 P.2d 112, 114 (1981). Under that interpretation, because Fitzgerald moved for a......