State v. McDaniel, 4220

Decision Date11 September 1980
Docket NumberNo. 4220,4220
PartiesThe STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Lewis Stevenson McDANIEL, Appellant.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer III and Crane McClennen, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Kemper & Henze by James Hamilton Kemper, Phoenix, for appellant.

Lewis Stevenson McDaniel, in pro per.

CAMERON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of guilt of murder in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-451, 1 -452, -453, -454, -138, -139, and -140; robbery in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-641 and -643, as amended 1967 and 1975, and §§ 13-138, -139, and -140; and kidnap in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-491, -138, -139, and -140; and sentences of death for the murder; not less than twenty nor more than life imprisonment for the robbery; and not less than nine nor more than ten years imprisonment for the kidnapping, all sentences to run concurrently. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-4031 and -4035.

Numerous issues were raised on appeal, both by defense counsel and the defendant himself. We need deal with only two of these:

1. Was defendant's right to cross-examine accomplices unduly restrained?

2. Did a successor judge have the power to sentence the defendant?

The facts necessary for a disposition of this appeal are as follows. After getting off work early on the morning of 4 August 1975, Arthur Kaehler drove to East Van Buren Street where he picked up a young prostitute named Alice Watkins. When Kaehler asked her to have sex with him, she declined, but she agreed to let him take her home to her apartment in South Phoenix. When Kaehler and Alice arrived at the apartment, Alice agreed to go inside and ask Theresa if she wished to have sex with Kaehler. Kaehler followed her inside, and after a period of drinking and dancing with Alice, Theresa and Cathy, Kaehler went into a bedroom with Theresa, presumably to have sex.

Seven people lived at the apartment from time to time: Alice Watkins; McDaniel, her boyfriend, and the defendant in this matter; Theresa Hill, also a prostitute; Mark Rich, Theresa's boyfriend; Cathy Gaines, Alice Watkins' sister; and Alice Watkins' two small children.

While Kaehler and Theresa were in the bedroom, defendant and Mark Rich returned to the apartment. They went outside the apartment and observed Kaehler and Theresa through the bedroom window, and then returned to the apartment. Mark then entered the bedroom, demanding to know what Kaehler was doing with his wife (although Theresa was not in fact his wife). The defendant also entered the room and both men began hitting and kicking Kaehler. The evidence was unclear as to who did what, but it is clear that Kaehler was tied up and liquor was poured down his throat. His wallet, watch and ring were taken from him. Alice testified that defendant decided to take Kaehler somewhere and leave him where he would be found. Kaehler, gagged and wrapped in a blanket, was imprisoned in the trunk of his own car. Mark, Alice, and Theresa drove the car to an apartment near 40th Street in South Phoenix, parked, and left the vehicle with windows open, keys in the ignition, and Kaehler still in the trunk. There was testimony at trial that during the drive Kaehler was alive and screaming "let me out." Defendant followed in his own car, picked up the other three, and they all returned to the apartment. Kaehler died of heat exhaustion or suffocation in the extreme heat of the trunk. His body was found three days later.

All five of the adults living in the apartment were arrested. Alice and Theresa pled guilty to manslaughter and were incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison. Mark, still a juvenile, was processed through the juvenile corrections system. Cathy was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony.

Defendant was charged with robbery, kidnapping and murder, and trial began on 16 August 1976. A jury found McDaniel guilty of all three counts, but a motion for new trial was granted on the basis of juror misconduct. The defendant waived a jury in his second trial, and the case was tried to the court. Trial began on 13 June 1977, and, on 7 July 1977, the court found defendant guilty of all three counts. On 18 July 1977, the court held an aggravation-mitigation hearing as required by A.R.S. § 13-454(B). Before sentencing, however, defendant filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge on the basis of bias and prejudice. This motion was heard by visiting Judge T. J. Mahoney and was granted. Judge Frederic Heineman was assigned as trial judge. Defendant's motion for new trial was denied, additional testimony received in regard to aggravation and mitigation, and the defendant was sentenced to death. Defendant was later resentenced pursuant to State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441, 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. den. 440 U.S. 924, 99 S.Ct. 1254, 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979), and the death sentence was imposed. From these convictions and sentences, defendant timely appeals.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

In a supplementary appellate brief he filed pro se, McDaniel argues that the trial court erroneously limited cross-examination so as to prevent the defense from eliciting testimony tending to show that Mark Rich had reasons for not telling the whole truth at trial. Specifically, the defense was precluded from asking Mark Rich about the terms of the juvenile disposition of charges against him arising from the Kaehler death.

There is evidence suggesting that Rich instigated the harassing of Kaehler and that he was as involved as McDaniel in the events leading to Kaehler's death. The At trial, the defense tried to elicit from Rich facts concerning the disposition of charges filed against him in the Kaehler crimes:

charges against Rich were disposed of in juvenile proceedings. The record is unclear as to his sentence; he was apparently incarcerated at the Adobe Mountain juvenile facility for something under three years.

"Q Now, do you know what the situation is about how long you can be held out at Adobe Mountain under the terms of your juvenile commitment?

"MR. SULLIVAN: Objection, irrelevant and immaterial.

"THE COURT: Sustained.

"MR. HAMBURGER: May I be heard?

"THE COURT: No.

"MR. HAMBURGER: May I make a statement for the record?

"THE COURT: You may make a statement on the record out of the presence of the witness. I may let you make your statement later, Mr. Hamburger.

"Q BY MR. HAMBURGER: Do you presently have a charge pending against you as an adult?

"MR. SULLIVAN: Objection, irrelevant and immaterial.

"THE COURT: Overruled.

"Q BY MR. HAMBURGER: Answer the question.

"A Yes.

"Q Will you tell the Court what that charge is?

"THE COURT: He doesn't have to tell the Court, the case is in this Court. I will let the record reflect that the case is presently in this Division."

In its offer of proof, the defense indicated that it intended to show that, because of felony charges pending against him as an adult, Rich would be reluctant to testify honestly about the Kaehler crimes. In addition, the defense believed it could show that Rich's testimony would affect the date of his release from juvenile custody. Because of the trial judge's decision not to allow inquiry into the juvenile disposition and because of his noting that the case against Rich was pending in his court, rather than allowing testimony concerning the case, the record here is bare of facts concerning Rich's legal status. We do not know what charges were originally filed against him, what charges led to his incarceration at Adobe Mountain, what were the terms and duration of his detention as a juvenile, and what charges were held open against him in the Superior Court. What was in the mind...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. McKinney, s. CR-93-0362-A
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • May 16, 1996
    ...than a general attack on his character. See State v. Morales, 120 Ariz. 517, 520-21, 587 P.2d 236, 239-40 (1978); cf. McDaniel, 127 Ariz. at 15-16, 617 P.2d at 1131-32. We refuse to speculate whether Hedlund's lawyer would have discovered something at the Rule 609 hearing that McKinney's la......
  • State v. McDaniel
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • April 28, 1983
    ...of a motion for a new trial, the second ending when the defendant's conviction was later reversed by this Court, see State v. McDaniel, 127 Ariz. 13, 617 P.2d 1129 (1980), the third ending in a mistrial, and the fourth being reviewed presently. The facts are essentially as The victim, Arthu......
  • State v. Richmond, 2914
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • May 12, 1983
    ...death penalty statute, A.R.S. § 13-703, required that the judge who heard the case also conduct the sentencing. State v. McDaniel, 127 Ariz. 13, 617 P.2d 1129 (1980). The statute has recently been amended to allow a judge other than the trial judge to conduct the sentencing hearing if the t......
  • State v. Winegardner, 2 CA-CR 2016-0110
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • May 31, 2017
    ..."possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives" behind her testimony. See Davis , 415 U.S. at 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105 ; State v. McDaniel , 127 Ariz. 13, 15, 617 P.2d 1129, 1131 (1980) ("if the trial judge has excluded testimony which would clearly show bias, interest, favor, hostility, preju......
  • 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