State of Arizona v. Hon. wein/cheatham

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. RACHEL ) Arizona Supreme Court
H. MITCHELL, Maricopa County ) No. CR-24-0092-PR
Attorney, )
) Court of Appeals
Petitioner, ) Division One
) No. 1 CA-SA 24-0050
v. )
) Maricopa County
HON. KEVIN B. WEIN, JUDGE OF THE ) Superior Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ) No. CR2013-004824-001
ARIZONA, in and for the County )
of Maricopa, ) FILED 5/8/2024
)
Respondent Judge, )
)
TASHAWN CHEATHAM, )
)
Real Party in Interest. )
__________________________________)

DECISION ORDER
Per Curiam

On April 5, 2024, Petitioner State of Arizona filed State’s

Petition for Review of the Court of Appeals’ Order Accepting

Jurisdiction but Denying Relief of the State’s Petition for Special

Action and requested expedited review. On April 10, 2024, the Court

granted the Petitioner’s motion for expedited review.

On April 29, 2024, Real Party in Interest Tashawn Cheatham

(“Cheatham”) filed Response to State’s Petition for Review of a

Special Action Decision from the Court of Appeals.

Upon review and consideration,

Although this Court generally “defers ‘to the trial judge who

sees and hears the juror,’” State v. Naranjo, 234 Ariz. 233, 240 ¶ 19

(2014) (citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 426 (1985)), the

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-24-0092-PR
Page 2 of 3

trial court may only strike a juror for cause when the juror's views

“would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of [the

juror’s] duties [] in accordance with [the court’s] instructions and

[the juror’s] oath,’” id. at 240 ¶ 17.

Based on the record before the Court,

THE COURT FINDS that the superior court failed to allow and

conduct sufficient examination to objectively conclude that Trial

Juror 1 could not render a fair and impartial verdict. See State v.

Canez, 202 Ariz. 133, 147 ¶ 32 (2002) (“Juror prejudice will not be

presumed but must be demonstrated by objective evidence.”).

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Cheatham did not meet his burden to

show that Trial Juror 1’s responses, based on the totality of

circumstances, indicate bias or prejudice making Trial Juror 1 unable

to render a fair and impartial verdict.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the superior court erred by

removing Trial Juror 1 without objective proof of bias or prejudice

that substantially impaired the juror’s ability to render a fair and

impartial verdict.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the Respondent Judge failed to make

the necessary finding, before removing Trial Juror 1, that the juror

has a bias or prejudice that substantially impaired the juror’s

ability to render a fair and impartial verdict. See, e.g., State v.

Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 498 ¶ 16 (2013) (finding that the trial court

erred by failing to afford an opportunity to rehabilitate a juror);

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-24-0092-PR
Page 3 of 3

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.5(f) (stating requirement that courts “conduct a

thorough oral examination of the [] jurors and control the voir dire

examination.”).

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Review of a Special

Action Decision of the Court of Appeals is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the superior court’s February 20,

2024 order striking Trial Juror 1 for cause.

DATED this 8th day of May 2024.

/s/
ROBERT BRUTINEL
Chief Justice

Justice William G. Montgomery is recused and did not participate
in the determination of this matter.

TO:
Alice Jones
Hon. Kevin B Wein
John N Schneider
Jennifer Nicole Carper
Sandra K Hamilton
Albert J Morrison Jr.
Amy M Wood
Hon Jeff Fine
Erin Bennett
ga