# State v. Moody

> Arizona Supreme Court · August 9, 2004 · 208 Ariz. 424

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9506281

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert Joe MOODY, Appellant
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 9, 2004
- **Citations:** 208 Ariz. 424; 94 P.3d 1119
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Jones
- **Judges:** Berch, McGregor, Ryan, Weisberg
- **Cited by:** 411 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9506281

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, for double jeopardy purposes, "[wjhen a case is reversed for any reason but insufficient evidence, the original conviction has been nullified and the slate wiped clean” (quoting Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 442, 101 S.Ct. 1852, 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981)) (in…
- holding that appellate courts “will not consider argument posited without authority”
- rejecting, post-Ring, defendant’s argument that he was denied an impartial and representative jury by the trial judge’s decision to death qualify the jurors and declining to revisit earlier holdings upholding the constitutionality of death qualification of juries
- concluding a statement did not require reversal where it “was promptly objected to, and was rendered less harmful by instructions by the court”

## Opinion text

*474 JONES, Chief Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
¶ 237 I concur in the judgment of the court both as to Moody’s convictions and the remand for resentencing. I dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that harmless error analysis is appropriate where sentencing determinations, including factual findings on aggravating circumstances, are made by the trial judge in the absence of the jury. I would remand the case for resentencing solely on the basis of the Sixth Amendment violation of the right to trial by jury on statutory aggravating factors relative to the death penalty. See State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 360, ¶¶ 25-37 , 93 P.3d 1076 (2004) (supplemental opinion) (Jones, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also State v. Sansing, 206 Ariz. 232, 241-42, ¶¶ 40-46 , 77 P.3d 30, 39-40 (2003) (Jones, C.J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9506281. Public record. Not legal advice.