State of Arizona v. Bernard Smith, 203 Ariz. 75

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed Bernard Smith’s challenge to the impartiality of the sentencing judge and his request for jury findings on capital aggravating factors. The court upheld the denial of the motion for change of judge, but held that Arizona’s judge-based capital sentencing procedure was unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona. The court reserved decision regarding Smith’s sentence and stated that the opinion was not a final disposition.

Holdings

1. A motion framed as a hybrid change-of-venue and change-of-judge request was properly treated as a motion for change of judge for cause under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 10.1. Because Smith knew of the relevant professional relationship more than ten days before filing the motion, the motion was untimely.
2. Judge Nelson was not required to recuse himself. The limited professional relationships with the victim's son and daughter-in-law were too attenuated, and Smith neither alleged nor proved actual bias or prejudice.
3. Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-703 was unconstitutional insofar as it permitted a sentencing judge, rather than a jury, to find the aggravating factors necessary to authorize imposition of the death penalty. The sentencing judge therefore erred in applying that procedure to Smith.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Smith's motion for change of judge was properly treated as a motion under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 10.1 and was untimely.
2. Whether the sentencing judge was required to recuse himself because of his limited professional contacts with the victim's son and daughter-in-law.
3. Whether Arizona's capital-sentencing procedure, which permitted a judge rather than a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposition of the death penalty, violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments after Ring v. Arizona.

Disposition

other