Serving Your Personal
and Professional Needs
Bankers Trust understands your need for personal and
commercial banking products and services.
We can assist you with:
• Private Banking
• Home Mortgage
• Commercial Lending
• Treasury Management
A strong financial foundation serves as a stepping stone to
reaching your goals. Big or small, down the road or around
the corner, we’re ready to help you live your legacy.
NMLS ID: 440379
(602) 224-2020 • 2525 E. Camelback Road, Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 85016
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 2 CA-CR 14-0181; 238 Ariz. 229, 359 P.3d 1 (App. 2015); Ariz. Supreme Court No. CR-15-0265-PR
(consolidating with CR-15-0236-PR for purposes of oral argument only)
Issue: “Did the two-judge majority in the published court of appeals decision err as a matter of law in holding that the plain smell of fresh marijuana
is no longer sufficient to establish probable cause for a search? Did the majority further err in finding that probable cause to search was otherwise lacking under its newly fashioned ‘odor plus’ standard and in finding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule was
unavailable in this case?”
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham, 1 CA-CR 14-0072; 237 Ariz. 502, 353 P.3d 382 (App. 2015); Ariz. Supreme Court No. CR-15-0286-PR
(consolidating with CR-15-0265-PR for purposes of oral argument only)
Issue: “The passage of [the] Arizona Medical Marijuana Act renders possession and use of marijuana lawful under some circumstances. Cheatham
argued that police officers could no longer rely on plain smell of marijuana alone for probable cause. The trial court denied the suppression
motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Did the lower courts err?”
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 2 CA-CR 14-0286; 238 Ariz. 218, 358 P.3d 639 (App. 2015); Ariz. Supreme Court No. CR-15-0348-PR
Issues: Petition for Review:
1. “When the erroneous jury instruction not only alleviates the government’s burden of proof but also shifts the burden onto the defendant, is that
error properly characterized as structural?”
2. “Did the COA misapply harmless error in determining that the evidence overwhelming supported conviction, where A) the erroneous jury
instruction went to the heart of the defense, and B) the jury asked a question directly related to the burden of proof on sexual motivation?”
Cross-Petition for Review:
1. “Is review by this Court warranted where ( 1) the two divisions of the court of appeals have issued inconsistent and irreconcilable opinions on
whether a defendant’s sexual motivation or lack thereof is an element of child molestation or rather an affirmative defense to that offense, and ( 2)
the court of appeals’ determination in this case that the defenses under A.R.S. § 13-1407 are not affirmative defenses contrary to longstanding law?”
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer, 1 CA-CR 14-0183; 238 Ariz. 309, 360 P.3d 105 (App. 2015); Ariz. Supreme Court No. CR-15-0380-PR (Granted
as to Issue 2 only)
Issue 2: “This Court has described the role of the superior court in reviewing a new trial motion based on weight of the evidence as that of a
‘thirteenth juror.’ This Court has further held the superior court does not abuse its discretion in granting such a motion unless the record
shows the defendant’s guilt has been clearly proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the court of appeals err in prescribing the narrower
standard than this Court has articulated for the superior court’s review of a new trial motion based on weight of the evidence, and in applying a less deferential standard than this Court has prescribed for an appellate court’s review of a superior court order granting such a motion?”
