Connely v. Hon. Whitten/State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE SHANNON CONNELY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER ) WHITTEN, Judge of the SUPERIOR ) COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) in and for the County of ) MARICOPA, ) ) Respondent Judge, ) ) STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. ANDREW ) W. THOMAS, Maricopa County ) Attorney, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/10/09 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN No. 1 CA-SA 09-0253 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-131155-001 DT The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED Cameron A. Morgan Attorney at Law By Cameron A. Morgan Attorneys for Petitioner Scottsdale Andrew P. Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney By Diane Meloche, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Real Party in Interest Phoenix S W A N N, Judge ¶1 Shannon Connely action to challenge: ( Petitioner ) brought this special (1) the superior court s denial of his motion to remand the indictment to the grand jury for a new determination of probable cause; (2) the superior court s denial of his motion to dismiss the charges on constitutional grounds; and (3) the superior court s failure to grant hearings on either motion before ruling. We accept jurisdiction and remand the indictment to the grand jury for a redetermination of probable cause. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 On May 15, 2009, a grand jury convened to consider evidence regarding committed one disorderly count conduct, the of State s aggravated both allegation assault dangerous that and felonies. Petitioner one count The of State presented the testimony of a detective who was involved in the investigation of the incident underlying the allegations, but was not present at the scene and therefore could not testify from his personal observations. ¶3 The detective testified that on May 7, 2009, a uniformed police officer was standing on the sidewalk in front 2 of Petitioner s house. was interviewing two According to the detective, the officer individuals in the driveway about an unrelated matter when Petitioner came out of the house waving a handgun at [the officer] and screaming obscenities at him. In response to the prosecutor s questions, the detective provided a detailed description of Petitioner s behavior: [PROSECUTOR]: And would you describe in detail what kind of things [Petitioner] was saying to the . . . officer? [DETECTIVE]: I would quote them directly from his report. [PROSECUTOR]: Okay. [DETECTIVE]: (Viewing document.) The subject continued screaming saying, Get the [expletive] off my property, [expletive]. You are [expletive] trespassing. Then after he was given commands to drop the gun, there was some other obscenities such as, It s in a [expletive] holster. The subject then screamed at me saying, You are [expletive] trespassing, [expletive]. Get the [expletive] off my property. [PROSECUTOR]: And the gun was in a holster at that time apparently? [DETECTIVE]: That is correct. [PROSECUTOR]: Is that correct. But it was still raised and pointed toward the officer? [DETECTIVE]: The gun was in the -- [Petitioner s] right hand. It was raised up in the air, and he brought it down towards the officer. [PROSECUTOR]: And a gun, even though it s in a holster, is capable of being fired. Is that correct? [DETECTIVE]: Yes, it is. [PROSECUTOR]: All right. And this situation continued with [Petitioner] repeatedly cursing at the officer and telling him to get off the property and pointing the gun at him, and the officer continually the officer at some point pulled his gun on [Petitioner]. Is that correct? [DETECTIVE]: That is correct. 3 The detective then testified that after the officer repeatedly ordered Petitioner complied. to drop the gun, Petitioner eventually On the basis of the detective s testimony, the grand jury returned a true bill indicting Petitioner on both counts. ¶4 Petitioner s August 20, 2009 motion requesting that the matter be remanded to the grand jury was denied, and his motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner s October 2, 2009 motion for dismissal of the charges on Second Amendment grounds was also denied. Thereafter, petition for special action relief. Petitioner filed this By order filed October 20, 2009, we granted Petitioner s request to stay trial. JURISDICTION ¶5 The denial of a motion for remand of an indictment to the grand jury is generally reviewable only by special action. State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9, 32, 906 P.2d 542, 565 (1995). We therefore accept special action jurisdiction on that issue here. Because we grant relief and remand to the grand jury, we decline jurisdiction with respect to the other issues raised by Petitioner. DISCUSSION ¶6 We review the denial of a motion for remand of an indictment for an abuse of discretion. Francis v. Sanders, 222 Ariz. 423, 426, ¶ 10, 215 P.3d 397, 400 (App. 2009). A court may law abuse its discretion by committing 4 an error of in reaching a discretionary conclusion. Id. Petitioner argues that the superior court abused its discretion because at the grand jury evidence, proceeding, failed aggravated to assault, the provide and prosecutor a presented definition failed to of inform misleading gun the use jurors for about Petitioner s constitutional rights. ¶7 In grand jury proceedings, an accused is entitled to due process. E.g., Crimmins v. Superior Court (Collins), 137 Ariz. 39, 41, 668 P.2d 882, 884 (1983). Due process requires that the prosecutor s presentation of the evidence be fair and impartial. ¶8 Id. Here, the prosecutor presented the testimony of the detective, who was not present during Petitioner s interaction with the officer and did not interview the officer. the incident, report. the detective referred only to To describe the officer s The detective testified that Petitioner had exited his residence waving a handgun and the holstered gun was raised up in the air, and he brought it down towards the officer. But the officer s detailed report nowhere indicated that Petitioner ever waved or raised and brought down the gun. According to the report, Petitioner exited the house screaming and the officer observed the gun in his hand. When the officer commanded Petitioner to drop the gun, Petitioner turned his hand gun sideways and yelled, It s in a [expletive] holster! 5 After more verbal exchanges, Petitioner dropped the gun and was taken into custody. ¶9 Petitioner between the contends detective s that and because the of report s the disparity descriptions of Petitioner s actions, the detective s testimony was misleading. The State contends that the detective s misleading for several reasons. testimony was not First, the State argues that the differences between the descriptions of the testimony and the report are semantic only. We disagree. We have no difficulty concluding that a description of a person waving and then raising and lowering a gun is fundamentally different from a description sideways. of the Indeed, person the holding misleading a gun and description turning of it Petitioner raising and lowering the gun followed a specific question from the prosecutor as to whether the gun was pointed toward the officer. Despite the lack of any evidence that the gun was ever pointed toward the officer, the testimony created the (apparently false) impression that it was. ¶10 differ The State next argues that even if the descriptions more immaterial conduct than merely because neither require proof that semantically, aggravated the gun the assault was difference nor waved is disorderly or pointed. Petitioner s manipulation of the gun, however, directly bears on a key element of aggravated assault the reasonableness of the 6 officer s apprehension of imminent physical injury. §§ 13-1203(A)(2) (2001), 13-1204(A) (Supp. 2008). See A.R.S. It also bears on the determination whether Petitioner s handling or display of the gun was reckless, as required under one theory of disorderly conduct. See A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(6). ¶11 The State finally argues that it is highly likely that the detective s testimony was accurately based on documents other than the officer s report, which is only a portion of a larger incident report. But the State has not shown that the detective based his testimony on other documents, and has not shown that other documents would support the testimony. Indeed, Petitioner has attached to his reply brief the transcript of a September detective, 22, 2009 after interview reviewing of the detective all the reports at in which the the case, acknowledged that the reports indicated only that the gun was raised. ¶12 We conclude, therefore, that the detective s testimony was misleading. Because the prosecutor failed to correct the detective s misstatements, Petitioner was deprived of his due process right evidence. to a fair and impartial presentation of the See Maretick v. Jarrett, 204 Ariz. 194, 198, ¶ 14, 62 P.3d 120, 124 (2003). ¶13 Regarding Petitioner s arguments that the prosecutor failed to inform the grand jurors about the definition of gun 7 use and Petitioner s constitutional rights, we find no error. The grand jurors asked no questions concerning those matters and potential defenses, and we do not find that instruction on them here was essential to avoid a needless prosecution. See Francis, 222 Ariz. at 427, ¶ 16, 215 P.3d at 401. CONCLUSION ¶14 The prosecutor s presentation of evidence at the grand jury proceeding was not fair and impartial. Accordingly, we remand the indictment for a redetermination of probable cause by the grand jury. /S/ ___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ____________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge /S/ ____________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.