State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 02 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2295,2295 |
| Citation | 109 Ariz. 267,508 P.2d 731 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Melvin Lee TAYLOR, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
This is an appeal by the defendant, Melvin Taylor, from jury verdicts and judgments of guilty to the crimes of murder, § 13--451 et seq. A.R.S. and a sentence of death thereon; assault with a deadly weapon, § 13--249 et seq. A.R.S. (two counts); robbery, § 13--641 et seq. A.R.S. (two counts), with a sentence as to each of the four counts of not less than forty years nor more than life imprisonment, said four terms to be served concurrently.
Although the trial of the defendant Taylor was consolidated with that of the codefendant Ray Chatman, we believe that each defendant should be treated separately on appeal to avoid confusion between the different allegations of error made by the separate defendants and their different counsel.
We are called upon to answer the following questions on appeal:
A. As to the jury:
1. Was the jury constitutionally infirm because of the exclusion of jurors between the ages of 18 and 21 when at the same time individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 were eligible voters under the statutes of the United States?
2. Was there constitutionally impermissible racial discrimination in the selection of the jury panels wherein only two out of 125 jurors called for the panel were negroes?
3. Does the simultaneous determination by the jury of both guilt and punishment violate the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the due process clause of the Arizona Constitution (A.R.S.)?
B. As to the trial itself:
1. Were the pretrial identification procedures so prejudicial and suggestive as to taint the in-court identification of the defendant Taylor by Ida Long?
2. Did the refusal of the trial court to permit Officer Matthews to testify to statements made to him by Ida Long immediately following the incident deny the appellant his right to effective cross-examination?
3. Did the trial court's refusal to give any jury instructions on the elements of identity constitute reversible error?
4. Did the allegedly 'highly inflammatory and prejudicial closing argument' by the prosecutor deny the defendant his constitutional right of confrontation and cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
The defendant also raised questions concerning the constitutionality of the death penalty which was imposed in this case. Since this trial, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Stewart v. Massachusetts, 408 U.S. 845, 92 S.Ct. 2845, 33 L.Ed.2d 744 (1972), has indicated that the death penalty is contrary to the cruel and unusual punishment section of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and we do not need to consider in this appeal questions relating to the death penalty.
The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. On 7 March 1970, between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m., two young negro males, one armed with a pistol and the other with a rifle, entered a Circle K convenience market located at 602 West Baseline Road in the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. There were seven persons present at the time: two clerks on duty, Ida Long and her sister, Barbara Toland; a stock boy, Kenneth Meiner; customers consisting of Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Homer and their two sons, ages 17 and 14. The two suspects ordered all persons to the floor and demanded the money in the cash drawers. It is disputed as to what the stock boy On 9 March, detectives assembled two groups of photographs of young negro males including the defendant Taylor and displayed them to Ida Long, both during the day and later that evening. Mrs. Long was unable on either occasion to select any of the pictures as resembling the robbers.
Kenneth Meiner, did at this time, but in any event shots were fired and Kenneth Meiner died shortly thereafter from a small caliber bullet wound in the chest. The two suspects then took the money from the cash drawers of the register and fled. One witness, Francis Homer, age 14, indicated that he heard a car leave at a high rate of speed from behind the store. The police were called and two City of Phoenix police officers immediately responded. At the time of their arrival only the two clerks, Ida Long and Barbara Toland, were present with the deceased. The Homer family had departed. A description from Ida Long was obtained and broadcast to law enforcement officials. The other clerk, Barbara Toland, was unable to furnish a description at that time. Shortly thereafter, a second description was obtained from the clerk, Ida Long. She described the one carrying the pistol (later identified as the defendant Taylor) as a negro male, 22--25 years old, 5 3 tall, 120 pounds, medium build and medium complexion, and wearing a white Navy hat with the brim pulled down and being the shorter of the two. She described the one carrying the rifle (later identified as the defendant Chatman) as being a negro male, 22--23 years old, 5 7 --5 8 tall, 180 pounds, wearing a brownish red shirt and a darker shade of work pants. The defendant Taylor is 5 9 , 147 pounds, dark complexion, and the codefendant Chatman is 5 8 , 133 pounds.
As a result of their investigation, the detectives obtained a potential identification from a 13 year old boy, Curtis Whaley. Whaley selected the photographs of the two defendants whom he had known previously. Curtis Whaley told the officers that he had been in front of the Circle K Market during the evening of 7 March and saw Ray Chatman and Melvin Taylor in front of the market. Whaley said that Chatman was wearing a black sleeveless basketball shirt and Taylor a sailor-type hat.
Pictures of the two defendants were enlarged and with similar sized pictures of seven other negro males were displayed to Ida Long, and Mrs. Long selected the picture of Ray Chatman as the taller suspect carrying the refle, but did not identify the picture of the defendant Taylor which was included in the group of pictures which she examined. The same groups of photographs were exhibited to Francis Homer and he selected Ray Chatman as resembling the suspect with the rifle, but did not identify the defendant Taylor, although he did identify another person as being the suspect with the pistol. At this point it is important to note that the person he did identify was the brother of the witness, Curtis Whaley. Pictures were also shown to Barbara Toland who selected the picture of the defendant Taylor as being similar to the person who came into the state 20 to 25 minutes before the robbery wearing a white sailor hat. She was unable to identify the defendants Taylor or Chatman as persons who committed the robbery.
Warrants were issued for the arrest of Chatman and Taylor and the defendant Taylor surrendered himself to the police. A lineup was immediately formed and the defendant was placed in the lineup with five other young negro males, two of whom had 'afro' or 'natural' hairdos as did the defendant, and three who did not. The witnesses, Ida Long, Barbara Toland, Mabel Homer, Francis Homer, and Ronald Homer were each asked separately to view the lineup. Barbara Toland identified the defendant Taylor as the one with the white sailor hat who came into the market prior to the robbery. Ida Long identified the defendant Taylor as the person with the white sailor hat who had come into the store before the robbery. Mabel Homer, Francis Homer, and Ronald Homer identified another man as one of the robbers. At the trial, Ida Long Barbara Toland The defendant Taylor did not testify in his own behalf. The codefendant Chatman offered evidence of alibi and called numerous witnesses in support of his defense. He also testified and denied any knowledge of the crime.
and Curtis Whaley all identified the defendant Taylor as being present either before or during the robbery.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to all counts including first degree murder and assessed the penalty of death. From a judgment on the verdict and a sentence of death and 40 years to life as to each of the other four counts, defendant Taylor brings this appeal.
Trial in this matter was held in December of 1970 and at that time the Arizona Revised Statutes required that a person to be a registered voter must be 21 years or more of age. § 16--101 A.R.S., as amended, Laws, 1970.
Arizona statutes and case law provide that the jury lists shall be selected at random from voter registration lists, § 21--301, subsec. A A.R.S.; State v. Mahoney, 106 Ariz. 297, 475 P.2d 479 (1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 917, 91 S.Ct. 898, 27 L.Ed.2d 818 (1971); State v. Narten, 99 Ariz. 116, 407 P.2d 81 (1965), cert. den. 384 U.S. 1008, 86 S.Ct. 1985, 16 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1966). The jury commissioner is to be provided with the list not later than 1 January following each biennial election. This list is to be updated each six months. § 21--301, subsec. B A.R.S.
In the spring of 1970, the Congress of the United States amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965 providing that citizens 18 years of age or older could be electors. Pub.L. No. 91--285, Title III, § 302, effective 1 January 1971, 84 Stat. 318, 42 U.S.C. 1973 bb--1 (1970). 1 It is asserted by defendant that where a substantial body of individuals, those 18 years old, have been by class excluded from prospective jury duty, a prima facie showing of discrimination has been made. We do not agree. The jury list used in the present case was lawfully selected even though at the time the jury list was compiled 18 year olds were excluded. Periodic (6 month) updating is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. King
... ... This court has repeatedly held that the defendant must voice his objection to arguments that are objectionable, and failure to do so constitutes a waiver of any right to review. State v. Holmes, 110 Ariz. 494, 496, 520 P.2d 1118, 1120 (1974) (citation omitted); see also State v. Taylor, 109 Ariz. 267, 274, 508 P.2d 731, 738 (1973) (listing cases in which court refused to consider allegations of improper statements by prosecution when defendant failed to make timely objection). Thus we conclude that by failing to object to the prosecutor's comments in a timely fashion, defendant ... ...
-
State v. Gretzler
... ... The figures show that 87% of the total population is "Anglo-American," while the remainder is "Spanish-American," "Indian," "Negro," or "Other." Gretzler contends that there should have been thirteen Spanish-Americans instead of two ... In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975), the United States Supreme Court held that petit juries must be drawn from a source fairly representative of the community, and that the defendant need not be a member of the group allegedly excluded in order to raise this question ... ...
-
State v. Valenzuela
...v. Lamar , 205 Ariz. 431, 441–42 ¶¶ 53–54, 72 P.3d 831 (2003), supplemented , 210 Ariz. 571, 115 P.3d 611 (2005) ; State v. Taylor , 109 Ariz. 267, 274, 508 P.2d 731 (1973).¶ 78 Nowhere in this statement did the prosecutor mention that the State provided the jury with "real facts," and the ......
-
Clark v. Lewis
...See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) (fair cross-section); State v. Taylor, 109 Ariz. 267, 271-72, 508 P.2d 731, 735-36 (1973) (equal protection). The factual basis Clark now relies on to support this claim also existed at the time of his first f......