State v. Reeden
Decision Date | 02 December 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 2122,2122 |
Citation | 477 P.2d 240,106 Ariz. 409 |
Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. John M. Von REEDEN, Appellant. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Machmer, Lehman & Cantor, by Gerald A. Machmer, Phoenix, for appellant.
John M. Von Reeden, hereafter referred to as defendant was tried on October 24, 1967, on a charge of murder and on November 1, 1967, found guilty by the jury of murder second degree, and sentenced to a term of not less than 10 years nor more than 15 years in the Arizona State Penitentiary. From a denial of his motion for a new trial he appeals.
The defendant was charged with murdering his wife, Rebecca Lynn Von Reeden on July 9, 1967. On that date and at the time of his trial he was free on bond in connection with a pending appeal of a previous conviction of eleven counts of Grand Theft by Embezzlement, Felonies. Defendant during the murder trial did not take the stand and testify. The Court of Appeals, 9 Ariz.App. 190, 450 P.2d 702, on February 25, 1969, reversed for a new trial the embezzlement convictions and such charges were dismissed.
Defendant thereafter filed a motion for a new trial under Rules of Criminal Procedure, 310, subd. 3, A.R.S. 17, upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence and set forth:
'That at the time of the murder trial held before this Court, the Defendant had convictions for eleven felonies, which said record of conviction was evidence to be used for the impeachment of the Defendant on the witness stand.
'That subsequent to that time the felony conviction was reversed and the charges dismissed.
'That the reversal of the charges constitutes new evidence and that the Defendant now cannot be impeached by his prior felony conviction as there is no prior felony conviction.'
The trial court after hearing denied the motion for a new trial which was made two years after rendition of the verdict. Defendant appealed under provisions of A.R.S. 17, Rules of Criminal Procedure § 348B contending the trial court erred in not granting his motion for a new trial. This court will not disturb a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial unless it appears there has been an abuse of discretion, State v. George, 100 Ariz. 350, 414 P.2d 730; State v. Sorrell, 95 Ariz. 220, 388 P.2d 429; State v. Quintana, 92 Ariz. 267, 376 P.2d 130; State v. Turner, 92 Ariz. 214, 375 P.2d 567. The law gives broad discretion to a court and permits a motion for new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence after time for appellate review. In State v. Johnson, 99 Ariz. 52, 406 P.2d 403 in passing on the question of whether it is proper to introduce evidence of a conviction of a felony for impeachment when the conviction is on appeal we said:
'* * * The answer is to be found in a determination of whether the prosecutor was justified in concluding that it was a permissible question sanctioned by law.' Id. at 188.
A similar argument was presented in State v. Barker, 94 Ariz. 383, 385 P.2d 516 in which the court refused to instruct the county attorney to not ask questions in regard to a conviction had some 16 years before, we said:
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. King
...position that the rule which allows impeachment by prior felony convictions is not constitutionally defective. State v. Reeden, 106 Ariz. 409, 477 P.2d 240 (1970); State v. Fields, 104 Ariz. 486, 455 P.2d 964 FAILURE TO INSTRUCT AS TO PENETRATION This court has many times held that it is re......
-
State v. Tinghitella
...for whatever reason he chooses, cannot as a basis for rehearing complain that his case was prejudiced by such act.' State v. Von Reeden,106 Ariz. 409, 477 P.2d 240 (1970). The trial court's denial of the motion In limine was not Defendant urges error in the court's giving certain additional......
-
State v. Durham
...the trial court abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily. Former Rule 310, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; State v. Reeden, 106 Ariz. 409, 477 P.2d 240 (1970); State v. Mason, 105 Ariz. 466, 466 P.2d 760 (1970); State v. Bogard, 88 Ariz. 244, 354 P.2d 862 We find the trial court ......
-
State v. Ballinger
...831 (1953). Even though a conviction is on appeal, it is considered a complete conviction for impeachment purposes. State v. Reeden, 106 Ariz. 409, 477 P.2d 240 (1970). The constitutionality of impeachment by prior felony conviction has been consistently upheld by this Court. State v. King,......