Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Clarence Dixon was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. At trial, he represented himself. A jury found him guilty on all counts. When Appellant elected before trial to represent himself, the judge warned him that he would have sole responsibility for his defense, including examining and cross-examining witnesses. Appellant requested that an advisory counsel handle the examination of witnesses. The trial court rejected this proposal. On appeal, Appellant claimed multiple errors by the trial court entitled him to a new trial, including the trial courtâs denial of his proposed âhybrid representation.â The Supreme Court noted that âthere is no constitutional right to hybrid representation.â The Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellantâs motion. Finding no other errors from trial, the Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision and Appellantâs death sentence.

The Arizona Constitution entitles victims of crimes to be present and informed of all criminal proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present. In this case, Petitioners Morehart and Duffy challenged a court decision that denied them the opportunity to attend an ex parte hearing on the return of summonses issues as part of defense counselâs pretrial investigation and mitigation of evidence in a capital case. The Defendant was charged with five counts of fist-degree murder. The State sought the death penalty. In 2006, the trial court found the defendant indigent, and approved an ex parte motion for the appointment of a mitigation specialist and an expert. Defense counsel filed a motion for a hearing on the matter. The court granted the ex parte request, and the Victims objected to it. The Victims sought special action relief from the appellate court, arguing that state law âdoes not displace a victimâs right to be present at all criminal proceedings." The Supreme Court held that because the defendant had no right to attend such a purely procedural hearing, the victims had no right to attend it too. The Court vacated the appellate courtâs decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.