Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hegyi

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

June 23, 2016

STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner,
v.
THE HONORABLE HUGH HEGYI, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge, JOSH RASMUSSEN, Real Party in Interest.

         Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2013-102236-002 The Honorable Hugh E. Hegyi, Judge

          Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey R. Duvendack Counsel for Petitioner

          The Blumenreich Law Firm PLLC, Phoenix By Joshua Blumenreich

          Ballecer & Segal, LLP, Phoenix By Natalee Segal Co-Counsel for Real Party in Interest

          Judge Maurice Portley delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

          OPINION

          PORTLEY, Judge

         ¶1 In this special action we are asked to determine whether the superior court should have granted the State's motion seeking disclosure of unredacted mental-health evaluations of the Real Party in Interest, Josh Rasmussen, who has raised a "guilty except insane" defense under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-502 (2010). Because this legal issue is of statewide importance, we accept jurisdiction, and grant relief.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         ¶2 Rasmussen and two co-defendants are charged with armed robbery and first-degree murder. Rasmussen hired John A. Moran, Ph.D., to evaluate his mental-health status. After the evaluation which questioned his sanity, Rasmussen began exploring a guilty-except-insane defense.

         ¶3 The State raised concerns about the Moran diagnosis, and Rasmussen agreed to be evaluated by a court-appointed psychologist. The superior court appointed D.J. Gaughan, Ph.D., to perform the evaluation. After the evaluation, Dr. Gaughan agreed Rasmussen met the guilty except insane criteria. Rasmussen, upon request, provided a copy of both doctors' notes and data to the State, but redacted statements he made to both psychologists.

         ¶4 The State then moved to compel disclosure of Rasmussen's redacted statements, arguing disclosure was required because he had raised the guilty-except-insane defense under A.R.S. §§ 13-502, -3993(D) (2010), -4508(B) (2010), and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 11.7(a). Relying on Austin v. Alfred, 163 Ariz. 397, 788 P.2d 130 (App. 1990), Rasmussen successfully argued he was only required to produce copies of the doctors' records with his statements redacted. This special action followed.

         JURISDICTION

         ¶5 Our decision to accept special action jurisdiction is "highly discretionary." State ex rel. Romley v. Fields,201 Ariz. 321, 323, ¶ 4, 35 P.3d 82, 84 (App. 2001). Special action jurisdiction is appropriate when no "equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal" exists, Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a), or when the issue involves a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law. Romley, 201 Ariz. at 323, ΒΆ 4, 35 P.3d at 84 (citation omitted). Because the issue of whether a defendant who raises a guilty-except-insane defense has ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.