§ 4.14.4 Pretrial Procedures - Rules 12-16.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 4.14.4 Pretrial Procedures - Rules 12-16.

Rule 12 - Grand Jury Proceedings. A defendant’s claim that the grand jury did not have probable cause to indict must be challenged by a special action before trial; with one exception, such a claim will not be reviewed on appeal. State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 439-40, ¶ 31, 94 P.3d 1119, 1134-35 (2004); see also McKaney v. Foreman, 209 Ariz. 268, 269, ¶ 3, 100 P.3d 18, 19 (2004); Korzep v. Superior Court, 172 Ariz. 534, 540-41, 838 P.2d 1295, 1301-02 (App. 1991) (special action challenge to probable cause finding proper after original conviction overturned on appeal and case remanded for new trial). The exception is for a claim that the government obtained the indictment knowing it was based partially on perjured, material testimony. Moody, 208 Ariz. at 440, ¶ 31, 94 P.3d at 1135.

Although the standard of review for special actions is an abuse of discretion, appellate courts appear to determine de novo the existence of either of two grounds for challenging a grand jury indictment: that an insufficient number of grand jurors concurred in the indictment, or that the defendant was denied a substantial procedural right. Maretick v. Jarrett, 204 Ariz. 194, 197, ¶ 11, 62 P.3d 120, 123 (2003); Herrell v. Sargeant (State), 189 Ariz. 627, 630, 944 P.2d 1241, 1244 (1997); Francis v. Sanders, 222 Ariz. 423, 426, ¶ 10, 215 P.3d 397, 400 (App. 2009).

Rules 13.3 and 13.4 - Joinder and Severance of Offenses. A trial court has broad discretion concerning matters of joinder and severance, and its decisions will not be disturbed absent an abuse of such discretion. State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60, 74, ¶ 43, 280 P.3d 604, 618 (2012); State v. Prince, 204 Ariz. 156, 159, ¶ 13, 61 P.3d 450, 453 (2003). Additionally, in considering whether a trial court erred in denying a motion to sever, a reviewing court is mindful that the trial court exercises considerable discretion in determining whether, in light of the evidence then before the court, defendant has made the requisite showing of prejudice. State v. Van Winkle, 186 Ariz. 336, 339, 922 P.2d 301, 304 (1996).

In some cases, the severance of offenses depends upon the “cross-admissibility” of evidence as to each offense. In such cases, the court’s determination of the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. LeBrun, 222 Ariz. 183, 185, ¶ 5, 213 P.3d 332, 334 (App. 2009); see also State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, 49, 51, ¶¶ 29, 38, 97 P.3d 865, 874, 876 (2004).

Rule 13.5 - Amending the Charging Document. A claim that a trial court improperly granted a motion to amend, thereby depriving defendant of notice of the charges and of a double jeopardy defense to a subsequent prosecution on the original charges, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bucchieri-Blanca, 233 Ariz. 324, 329, ¶ 16, 312 P.3d 123, 128 (App. 2013); State v. Johnson, 198 Ariz. 245, 247, ¶ 4, 8 P.3d 1159, 1161 (App. 2000). When the trial court erroneously grants a motion to amend the charging document over the defendant’s objection, the error is not prejudicial per se; rather, it is subject to harmless-error analysis. State v. Freeney, 223 Ariz. 110, 111, ¶ 2, 219 P.3d 1039, 1040 (2009). The trial court has considerable discretion in ruling on a post-trial motion to amend the indictment to conform to the evidence. State v. Sammons, 156 Ariz. 51, 54, 749 P.2d 1372, 1375 (1988).

Rule 15 - Discovery; Generally. Discovery-related matters (including sanctions for discovery violations) are generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 518, ¶ 153, 314 P.3d 1239, 1273 (2013); State v. Benson, 232 Ariz. 452, 460, ¶ 21, 307 P.3d 19, 27 (2013); State v. Bernini, 222 Ariz. 607, 612, ¶ 14, 218 P.3d 1064, 1069 (App. 2009).

Rule 15.1(g)(1) - Notice of Intent To Seek Death Penalty. The trial court’s denial of a motion to preclude the state from seeking the death penalty due to a late filing of a notice of intent to seek the death penalty is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Lee, 185 Ariz. 549, 555-56, 917 P.2d 692, 698-99 (1996). Rule 15.7(a) cloaks trial judges with broad discretion and provides a wide choice of sanctions for notice violations. State v. Jackson, 186 Ariz. 20, 24, 918...