I wanna a girlfriend for Glendale Arizona

Added: Aquila Alt - Date: 16.01.2022 01:54 - Views: 39947 - Clicks: 3491

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Schafer, III and R. Wayne Ford, Asst. Defendant, Jose Francisco Ortiz, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, A. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of release for twenty-five years. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz.

Defendant and the victim, Anna Ramirez, had been a couple for the past six years and had lived together for the last three years. During this relationship, they had two children. As a result of unhappy differences, Anna moved out taking the children with her. Approximately three weeks later on 14 February , the defendant went to the factory where Anna worked and tried unsuccessfully to talk to her.

On 17 February , defendant returned and confronted Anna in the parking lot. An argument ensued. Defendant fired several shots at Anna wounding her. She managed to crawl under a parked truck, but defendant followed her. He knelt down and after further discussion, fired twice at the victim, killing her. Of the numerous eye witnesses, none testified that Anna slapped or kicked the defendant. The testimony also indicated that the defendant fired the first shots after Anna had turned away from him and started to run. Anna died from two gunshot wounds, one of which the defendant inflicted after she crawled under the truck.

Defendant fled the scene and went to Mexico. Nine months later, defendant returned to Arizona and was arrested. Defendant appeals from a jury verdict and judgment of guilty of first degree murder and a sentence of life imprisonment.

Officer Martinsen was aware that defendant's primary language was Spanish, yet never asked defendant whether he wished to have a Spanish speaking interpreter present. However, the court granted such a request for the trial. The defendant has an IQ of 80 and a vocabulary at the third grade level. The defendant contends that, although he had some knowledge of English, he did not understand the technical terms that Officer Martinsen used nor did he understand all of the questions that Martinsen asked.

In particular, defendant contends he did not understand Officer Martinsen when he attempted to explain what a lawyer was and did. State v. Rivera, Ariz. Montes, Ariz. We might be persuaded by defendant's allegations were it not for the fact that the police taped defendant's conversation with Officer Martinsen. The trial court used the tape in reaching its decision as to whether or not to suppress the statements. The tape is part of the record in this court and we also listened to it.

In addition, the record contains a reporter's transcript of the tape which, as the trial court noted, was an accurate transcript. After listening to the tape, we are satisfied that not only did the defendant understand what Officer Martinsen said to him, but that he made his statements voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly. We find no error. At trial, Dr. Otto Bendheim, psychiatrist, and Dr. Robert Block, psychologist, testified regarding defendant's mental condition. The defendant called both doctors.

Bendheim testified:. Defense counsel, claiming that the state had "opened the door," sought permission to ask questions concerning other aspects of his mental condition at the time of the offense. He stated:. In cases involving an insanity defense, expert testimony concerning the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime is admissible.

McMurtrey, Ariz. However, in cases not involving an insanity defense, an expert witness ordinarily may not give an opinion concerning the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime. See State v. Christensen, Ariz.

In the instant case, the defendant had withdrawn his insanity defense. Even so, the defendant did not object to testimony by the psychiatrist that defendant knew right from wrong at the time of the crime. Moreover, such testimony was not prejudicial because the law ps a defendant knows right from wrong at the time of the crime.

Berndt, Ariz. Defendant, however, wanted to question the expert witnesses about defendant's probable mental state and particularly his "impulsivity" at the time of the crime. Rivera, we noted the distinction that is drawn between a person's continuing "general personality trait" about which expert testimony is admissible and a person's "probable state of mind at the time of the offense," which is for the jury to determine.

In the instant case, the court strictly followed Christensen and allowed testimony concerning the defendant's ability to reflect or premeditate generally, but not testimony concerning intent at the time of the crime. We believe that the questions asked Dr.

Block concerning defendant's ability to premeditate were permissible because they focused on the defendant's general personality trait rather than his probable mental state at the time of the offense. After some deliberation, the jury requested a definition of the term "reflection" contained in the instruction. Defendant requested that the judge instruct the jury that "reflection" included "meditation.

We agree with the trial judge. At the trial, the judge indicated the inclusion of "meditation" in the definition would have erroneously conveyed to the jury that reflection require "some long and deep meditating thought. This instruction follows R. Criminal Defendant contends that the second degree murder instruction was erroneous because it omitted the mental state of "recklessly," which is included in the statute that re:.

A party is entitled to any instruction reasonably supported by the evidence. Shumway, Ariz. In the instant case, the evidence supported a second degree murder instruction. There was, however, no evidence that this was a reckless shooting. The trial court was correct when it concluded: "[T]here is no way in the world that reasonable people could come to the conclusion that it is the result of recklessness. There was nothing in the evidence that would support an instruction of "recklessly. The court instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter, A.

Defendant contends that there was no evidence of a "cooling-off" period. Defendant ignores the fact that he testified that Anna had slapped him, and that he then went back to his car to get the gun. There was also time for a cooling-off between the time the defendant fired the first and the second sets of shots. After Anna sought safety under the pickup, defendant testified that he tried to take her hand before she started "insulting" him. All of these facts support an instruction on the "cooling-off" period.

Defendant contends it was error not to include an instruction on reckless manslaughter. We disagree. Defendant's testimony indicated that the murder was anything but reckless. He stated, "she slapped me I went back to the car because I had [the gun] in the car. I brought it out and I shot it I was boiling by then. Then I shot White, Ariz. Nowlin, N. We have reviewed the record for fundamental error as required by A. California, U. Leon, Ariz. The conviction of first degree murder and the sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release for twenty-five years are affirmed.

Ortiz Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court. Ortiz Annotate this Case. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. November 1, John M. Antieau, Phoenix, for appellant. Were defendant's statements to the police obtained in violation of defendant's Miranda rights? Did the trial court err in allowing the prosecution, but not the defense, to present expert testimony about defendant's mental state at the time of the offense?

Did the trial court err in its instructions to the jury? FACTS Defendant and the victim, Anna Ramirez, had been a couple for the past six years and had lived together for the last three years. Defendant's version of what happened, contained in his trial testimony, is as follows: We were talking and I said, I want my children to come back, I want you to come back, I want my children back. And then when she saw that I was crying, she didn't care, she didn't care about anything. She knew how to hurt me. She knew that she was hurting me just by taking away my children.

She knew that she could hurt me that way. Then when I was looking down like that is when she let me have it. That's when she slapped me and that's when I pulled out the gun. I went back to the car because I had it in the car. I brought it out and I shot it, but then one of the bullets popped out and I picked it up. And then I was hurting already. Then I shot. Before I shot, one of the bullets had popped out because I didn't know how to handle the gun. I didn't know how to handle it. That's when I shot. Right after I felt the slap on the face, that's when I shot. I don't know why. So I went back to the car.

I went back to the car crying. And then I didn't want to see what had happened, but then I went back over there and I saw her under the car and I said, give me your hand, you see what you made me do? And then she started insulting me. She said, you get out of here, you son of a bitch, I'm not going to tell you where your children are, I'm not going to tell you anything. And then when she kicked me, that's when I unloaded the pistol [into her]. To satisfy Miranda, the State must show that defendant understood his rights and intelligently and knowingly relinquished those rights before any custodial interrogation began.

Joe, just in the brief couple minutes we were in the room prior to turning on the tape recorder, ah, you indicated one that you have no objections to this interview being tape recorded, is that right? LM: O. Speak up so that the tape can hear you.

I wanna a girlfriend for Glendale Arizona

email: [email protected] - phone:(405) 962-6916 x 7566

Scottsdale Testimonials