State of Arizona v. Hon. wein/cheatham

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. RACHEL ) Arizona Supreme Court H. MITCHELL, Maricopa County ) No. CR-24-0092-PR Attorney, ) ) Court of Appeals Petitioner, ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 24-0050 v. ) ) Maricopa County HON. KEVIN B. WEIN, JUDGE OF THE ) Superior Court SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ) No. CR2013-004824-001 ARIZONA, in and for the County ) of Maricopa, ) FILED 5/8/2024 ) Respondent Judge, ) ) TASHAWN CHEATHAM, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) __________________________________)

DECISION ORDER Per Curiam

On April 5, 2024, Petitioner State of Arizona filed State’s Petition for Review of the Court of Appeals’ Order Accepting Jurisdiction but Denying Relief of the State’s Petition for Special Action and requested expedited review. On April 10, 2024, the Court granted the Petitioner’s motion for expedited review.

On April 29, 2024, Real Party in Interest Tashawn Cheatham (“Cheatham”) filed Response to State’s Petition for Review of a Special Action Decision from the Court of Appeals.

Upon review and consideration,

Although this Court generally “defers ‘to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror,’” State v. Naranjo, 234 Ariz. 233, 240 ¶ 19 (2014) (citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 426 (1985)), the

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-24-0092-PR Page 2 of 3

trial court may only strike a juror for cause when the juror's views “would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of [the juror’s] duties [] in accordance with [the court’s] instructions and [the juror’s] oath,’” id. at 240 ¶ 17.

Based on the record before the Court,

THE COURT FINDS that the superior court failed to allow and conduct sufficient examination to objectively conclude that Trial Juror 1 could not render a fair and impartial verdict. See State v. Canez, 202 Ariz. 133, 147 ¶ 32 (2002) (“Juror prejudice will not be presumed but must be demonstrated by objective evidence.”).

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Cheatham did not meet his burden to show that Trial Juror 1’s responses, based on the totality of circumstances, indicate bias or prejudice making Trial Juror 1 unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the superior court erred by removing Trial Juror 1 without objective proof of bias or prejudice that substantially impaired the juror’s ability to render a fair and impartial verdict.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the Respondent Judge failed to make the necessary finding, before removing Trial Juror 1, that the juror has a bias or prejudice that substantially impaired the juror’s ability to render a fair and impartial verdict. See, e.g., State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 498 ¶ 16 (2013) (finding that the trial court erred by failing to afford an opportunity to rehabilitate a juror);

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-24-0092-PR Page 3 of 3

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.5(f) (stating requirement that courts “conduct a thorough oral examination of the [] jurors and control the voir dire examination.”).

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Review of a Special Action Decision of the Court of Appeals is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the superior court’s February 20, 2024 order striking Trial Juror 1 for cause.

DATED this 8th day of May 2024.

/s/ ROBERT BRUTINEL Chief Justice

Justice William G. Montgomery is recused and did not participate in the determination of this matter.

TO: Alice Jones Hon. Kevin B Wein John N Schneider Jennifer Nicole Carper Sandra K Hamilton Albert J Morrison Jr. Amy M Wood Hon Jeff Fine Erin Bennett ga