Nali87
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,309
- Reaction score
- 819
http://gilli-land.blogspot.com/2013/02/developments-in-jodi-arias-death.html
(snipped)
The court finds the motion for a new finding of probable cause on the aggravating factor
is not timely. Defense counsel learned approximately one year ago that the testimony of
Detective Flores at the hearing held on August 7, 2009 was inconsistent with the testimony of the medical examiner Kevin Horn. The inconsistency relates to the sequence of the wounds inflicted on the victim on June 4, 2008. A motion for a new finding of probable cause should have been filed no later than 20 days prior to trial. Rule 16, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Also see Chronis v. Steinle, 208 P.3d 210 (2009), and Rules 13.5 and Rule 5, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The court further finds that, even if timely filed, the motion for new finding of probable
cause should be denied. The court finds the evidence relating to the sequence of the wounds was not material to the issue of whether there was probable cause to believe the offense was especially cruel under the theory the crime involved both physical and mental suffering of the victim. See minute entry dated August 18, 2009. The courts findings in August 2009 support that courts determination the victim suffered both physically and mentally regardless of when the wounds were inflicted, and that the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer. In its ruling, the court noted the victim was stabbed 27 times, had defensive wounds from grabbing the knife and was shot on the right side of his head. The bullet lodged in the victims left cheek. The defendant told police the victim was unconscious after being shot but
crawled around and was stabbed. Based upon these facts, the court concluded the victim would have felt pain and mental anguish associated with the multiple wounds. The court finds the inaccurate testimony of Detective Flores at the hearing on August 7, 2009 would not have changed the courts finding that the offense was especially cruel and was thus harmless error.
See Pitts v. Adams, 179 Ariz. 108, 876 P.2d 1143 (1994).
The court further finds that the evidence presented at trial in January 2012, including the testimony of Kevin Horn on January 9, 2012, established probable cause to believe the offense was especially cruel under the theory that it involved both physical and mental suffering of the victim. The court finds this evidence established probable cause the victim would have felt pain and mental anguish associated with the multiple wounds inflicted, and the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer. See State v. McCray, 218 Ariz. 252, 259, 183
P.3d 503 (2008), State v. Sansing, 206 Ariz. 232, 235, 77 P.3d 30 (2003) and State v. William
Herrera Jr., 176 Ariz. 21, 859 P.2d 131 (1993).
IT IS ORDERED denying the oral motion for new finding of probable cause on the
aggravating factor the offense was especially cruel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the motion for mistrial based upon the inaccurate
testimony of Detective Flores at the hearing conducted on August 7, 2009.
Here is the court ruling some of us have been quoting.