Appellate Court finds no error that
can be so characterized, the error
may be waived by failing to properly
assert it. Although an appealing
defendant may challenge a trial
court’s finding of the “presence of
child” aggravator by claiming that
there was no evidence presented at
his trial that the minor child was in
the room, aware of what was happening or even awake at the time the
murder occurred, the Arizona
Court of Appeals has previously
determined “that, in the context
of the [child presence aggravator
statute or ARS] § 13-701(D)
( 18), the term “presence” does
not require the child to be in the
same room as an incident.” While
a child’s mere presence in a home
where an offense has occurred does
not, standing alone, fulfill the statutory requirement absent some evidence that the child was aware of the
domestic violence-related offense,
so long as sufficient evidence is
presented, whether direct or
circumstantial, that a child was
not merely in proximity to the
offense, yet sufficiently exposed to
it (e.g., awake and in the same
room when the argument preced-
ing the homicide began), a trial
court does not abuse its discretion
by finding the “presence of child”
aggravator. State v. Torres, 2 CA-
CR 2012-0505, 12/10/13.
Although Rule 7. 2(c)( 1)
ARIZ.R.CRIM.P., provides that when
a defendant enters a guilty plea that
“will in all reasonable probability”
result in incarceration it must keep
or take him into custody immediately, a Superior Court in a criminal
case has the discretion to accept
the stipulation of the parties to
waive Rule 7. 2(c)( 1) pursuant to
Rule 17. 4 (a) and temporarily
release a defendant pending sentencing, whereby should he fail to
later appear as promised it may
order the forfeiture of their bail
or appearance bond. Under Rule
17. 4(a), ARIZ.R.CRIM.P., the prosecution and the defense “may negotiate concerning, and reach an agreement on any aspect of [a criminal]
case.” Although an appearance bond
is basically a contract, with the
bondsman being the surety, the
defendant the principal and the state
the creditor, the principal and creditor may modify their contract without consent of the surety because
the underlying contract incorporates
Arizona law, including both Rule
7. 2(c)( 1) and Rule 17. 4(a) of the
Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure. State of Arizona v.
Liberty Bail Bonds and Ameri-Bail
Bonds, et al., 1 CA-CV 12-0213,
12/5/13.
COURT OF APPEALS SPECIAL ACTION
MATTERS
ER 1. 7(a) Does Not Prevent a
Lawyer in a Derivative Action
from Also Representing the
Minority Shareholder on any
Direct Claims Against the
Corporation or its Management
That Arise from the Same Set of
Facts. Conflict of interest disputes
are resolved under Arizona Rules of
Professional Conduct Ethical
Rule 1. 7(a). That rule prohibits a
lawyer from representing a client
if ( 1) that representation will be
directly adverse to another client or
( 2) a significant risk exists that the
lawyer’s responsibilities to another
client, a former client, a third per-
son, or to the lawyer’s personal
interest will materially limit the
client’s representation. Lawyers are
not disqualified from representing
clients who are simultaneously pur-
suing direct claims against a corpora-
tion and derivative claims on behalf
of that corporation. If the filing of a
derivate claim created an attorney-
client relationship between the cor-
poration and the lawyer for the
minority shareholder, there would
be no way for the derivative plaintiff
to ever have conflict-free counsel.
Simms v. TP Racing, LLP, 1 CA-SA
13-0123, 1/2/14.
indicates a dissent
Detailed summaries
of selected cases
and other court news
may be found at
www.azapp.com.
APPELLATE HIGHLIGHTS
Litigation Support
• Forensic Analysis
• Strategic Litigation
Consulting
• Expert Testimony
• Trial Demonstratives
• Standard of Care in Design
and Construction Matters
Building Systems Analysis
• HVAC and Refrigeration
• Process Piping and Plumbing
• Cleanroom Design
and Performance
• Hazardous Occupancies
• Codes and Standards
• Workplace Exposures
www.acs-eng.com | bill@acs-eng.com | Ph. 602.888.7250 | Ph: 520.322.6150
8592 N. 84th Place | Scottsdale, AZ 85258
William R. Acorn, P.E., FASHRAE
Principal Engineer
Real-world experience
Our pragmatic approach to project
consulting and forensic/litigation
consulting is based on over 35 years
of real-world experience as a design
professional, mentor and forensic
analyst.
Our ability to explain complex issues
to non-technical audiences is a key
to success in solving your litigation
challenges.