1. Which of the following Justices from the U.S. Supreme Court most reflects your judicial philosophy?
−
2. Please rate your judicial philosophy on a scale of 1 to 10, with "strict constructionism"1 being a "1" and "noninterpretivism" being a "10."
−
3. Please state if you AGREE or DISAGREE with the following statement from Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts: "Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire."
−
4. Please rate your agreement with the reasoning in this statement from the U.S. Supreme Court on a scale of 1 to 10 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree: "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
−
5. Please rate your agreement with this statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 10 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree: "Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law."
−
Judicial Decisions
STATE OF ARIZONA v. ROBERT GUY DAYTON, JR.
Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2022-0087Question Presented: Whether the trial court erred in closing the courtroom to “nonessential people” during a portion of the victim’s testimony in violation of defendant’s right to a public trial as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions?Decision: Because the court committed structural error by closing the courtroom without satisfying the requirements set forth in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984)—convictions and sentences are reversed.Judge Position: Authored the 2/1 decision.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent by J. O'Neil: "When a trial court has made insufficient findings to allow for appellate review as required by the fourth element of the Waller test, the “appropriate remedy” is not necessarily a new trial (as the majority does here) but a remand to the court for appropriate findings."
STATE OF ARIZONA v. CHARLES B. BEELER
Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2020-0131Question Presented: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence under the Arizona Rape Shield Law, codified as A.R.S. § 13-1421 and violated the right to present a defense in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Decision: The court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Beeler had failed to meet his burden so the court’s exclusion of Beeler’s proffered evidence pursuant to § 13-1421 did not deprive him of his constitutional right to present a complete defense. Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
RICHARD RODGERS, SHELBY MANGUSON-HAWKES, DAVID PRESTON v. CHARLES H. HUCKELBERRY, SHARON BRONSON, et al.
Case Number: 2 CA-CV 2021-0072Question Presented: Whether Pima County’s agreements with World View Enterprises, Inc. for the lease, use, and purchase of certain county property violated the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution.Decision: Under the plain language of article IX, § 7 of the Arizona Constitution, Wistuber, and subsequent cases, Pima County’s LPA with World View violates the Gift Clause by granting an illegal subsidy to World View through the purchase option. Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. HON. BUTLER/VALENZUELA
Case Number: 2 CA-SA 2021-0043Question Presented: Whether the Victims’ Bill of Rights (VBR) provision in the Arizona Constitution allowing a victim to refuse an interview by the defendant applies to a victim-witness called to testify in a case involving a different victim and the prosecution of the same defendant whose crime against the victim-witness took place in another state.Decision: The VBR provision applies to a non-Arizona victim.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
DAVID M. MORGAN; TERRI JO NEFF v. HON. TIMOTHY DICKERSON AND HON. LAURA CARDINAL
Case Number: 2 CA-SA 2021-0007Question Presented: Whether Arizona law or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the disclosure of juror names.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. SHANNON PAUL ZUCK
Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2019-0130Question Presented: Whether the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motions to suppress evidence gained through disclosure of identifying information by an internet service provider and an ensuing search warrant, and a jury instruction permitting the jury to infer the minority of the exploited children violated the United States and Arizona constitutions.Decision: There was no error and the court affirms the convictions and sentences.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOHNNY ANGEL GOMEZ
Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2020-0127Question Presented: Whether the defendant’s two convictions and concurrent sentences for aggravated assault as to each of the five victims who suffered fractured bones, facial lacerations, and other significant injuries violates his constitutional protections against double jeopardy.Decision: Aggravated assault using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument and aggravated assault causing temporary but substantial disfigurement are distinct and separate offenses so the defendant’s dual convictions and concurrent sentences for the aggravated assault of each of his five significantly injured victims under subsections (A)(2) and (A)(3) of the aggravated assault statute do not violate double jeopardy principles.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. BENJAMIN HENRY TYAU
Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2020-0171Question Presented: Whether A.R.S. § 13-905(K), which precludes persons convicted of certain crimes from applying to have their judgments of guilt set aside, violates Tyau’s constitutional rights to petition the government for redress of grievances, due process, and equal protection under the United States and Arizona constitutions.Decision: The statute is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAVIER RIVERA CABRERA
Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2019-0128Question Presented: Whether the trial court violated Cabrera’s constitutional rights by denying him his constitutional right to present a complete defense.Decision: Cabrera failed to show he was denied a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. QUINTON LAMAR NUNN
Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2019-0160Question Presented: 1. Whether Nunn knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal by delaying his sentencing for more than ninety days pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4033(C), thereby depriving this court of jurisdiction. 2. Whether Nunn’s convictions for promoting prison contraband and possession of a dangerous drug violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.Decision: Nunn was not adequately warned of the consequences of delaying sentencing by absconding. Facing multiple punishments for possessing a dangerous drug violated double jeopardy. Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. ROBERT ALLEN BROWN
Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2019-0302Question Presented: 1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting Brown’s urinalysis results at his probation revocation hearing based on his allegation that multiple violations of § 6-110 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration rendered the results unreliable? 2. Whether A.R.S. § 13-917(B) unconstitutionally mandates a term of imprisonment when an intensive probationer has committed an additional felony In light of United States v. Haymond, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019)?
STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOEY LEE HEALER
Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2018-0134Question Presented: 1. Whether A.R.S. § 13-716 is an ex post facto law in violation of article I, § 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution and article II, § 25 of the Arizona Constitution. 2. Whether article II, § 15 of the Arizona Constitution should be read more broadly than the Eighth Amendment in the context of juvenile sentencing.Decision: Healer’s ex post facto claim fails because he cannot meet the threshold showing that A.R.S. § 13-716 is retroactive. The Arizona Supreme Court has not interpreted article II, § 15 of the Arizona Constitution more broadly than the Eighth Amendment to the court of appeals will not either.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
CLAUDIA DUFF v. TUCSON POLICE DEPT.; CITY OF TUCSON
Case Number: 2 CA-SA 2018-0058Question Presented: Whether the FASTAR program otherwise “violates” § 12-133 or the Arizona Constitution and is therefore invalid.Decision: ASTAR and local rules governing § 12-133 arbitration limits are procedural matters subject to the supreme court’s constitutional authority so the change in those limits and the implementation of FASTAR in Pima County were an appropriate exercise of authority.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
