# Respondents Brief — Schad v. Arizona

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0121%3A07

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Respondents Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1991
- **Citation:** 501 U.S. 624

## Text

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. The Sixth Amendment requires states to provide
for trial by jury in criminal matters involving serious
offenses. In federal criminal trials, that includes a require-
ment that the jurors return a unanimous verdict.

The questions presented are:

A. Whether petitioner waived any right to
unanimity by failing to request a specific verdict
form?

B. Whether the unanimous-verdict doctrine
applies to state capital offenses?

C. Whether the verdict in this case satisfied the
unanimity doctrine described in Johnson v. Loui-
siana and Apodaca v. Oregon?

D. Whether the specific-unanimity doctrine is
applicable to the states in a capital case?

E. Whether the Arizona first-degree murder
Statute complies with the specific-unanimity
doctrine if that doctrine is applicable to the
states?

F. Whether the facts of this case render harm-
less any error that might be associated with the
absence of a specific-unanimity instruction and
verdict form?

2A. Whether petitioner’s failure to seek direct
appellate review of the theft-as-a-lesser-included-offense-
of-robbery issue constitutes a waiver of that issue?

2B. Whether robbery is a lesser-included offense of
first-degree murder under the Statutory-elements test as
applied to the Arizona first-degree murder statute?

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......... 2... ccccceeceees i
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES............ iv
STATEMENT OF THE CAGE... .cccccccesacccsenes 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................-5. 5

ARGUMENTS

IA. PETITIONER DID NOT RAISE ANY JUROR-
UNANIMITY ISSUE AT EITHER OF HIS TWO
TRIALS OR AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO HIS
SECOND STATE APPEAL. HE IS THEREFORE
NOT ENTITLED TO REVIEW OF THIS ISSUE
ABSENT A DEMONSTRATION OF “PLAIN
8 merrier 8

IB. THE UNANIMITY DOCTRINE IS A FEDERAL
RIGHT NOT APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.. 11

IC. THE VERDICT IN THIS CASE SATISFIED THE
UNANIMITY DOCTRINE DESCRIBED IN
JOHNSON V. LOUISIANA AND APODACA V.
ORBGON . .. « .00.00.06:6560in ee nleinneennn 12

ID. THE SPECIFIC-UNANIMITY DOCTRINE
SOUGHT BY PETITIONER IS A RULE OF
PROCEDURE FOR FEDERAL TRIALS AND IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO THE STATES......... 14

lk. IF THE SPECIFIC-UNANIMITY DOCTRINE IS
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES, THE ARI-
ZONA FIRST-DEGREE MURDER STATUTE IS
CN FUE, CRUD his bc dcceaceeseccces 15

ili

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page

IF. EVIDENCE THAT THIS MURDER WAS COM-
MITTED BOTH WITH PREMEDITATION AND
DURING THE COURSE OF A FELONY IS
OVERWHELMING. IT WAS ALSO UNCON-
TESTED AT TRIAL. THESE FACTS RENDER
HARMLESS ANY ERROR THAT MIGHT BE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LACK OF A SPE-
CIFIC-UNANIMITY INSTRUCTION AND VER-
Se Rasekes 24

IIA. PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO SEEK DIRECT
APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE THEFT-AS-
A-LESSER-INCLUDED-OFFENSE-OF-ROB-
BERY ISSUE CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF
THAT ISSUE IN THIS COURT............... 27

IIB. UNDER THE STATUTORY-ELEMENTS TEST
AS APPLIED TO ARIZONA REVISED STAT-
UTES §§ 13-451 AND 452, ROBBERY IS NOT A
LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF FIRST-

28

CONCLUSION

iv

TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES

Page
CASES
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32
S F & |. Ore passim
Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S. Ct. 2382, 65
S yy | « SS Rr 28, 31, 32, 33
Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130, 99 S. Ct. 1623, 60
SS EERO NEA CE ee ng eee 13
Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252, 79 S. Ct. 1164, 3 L. Ed.
ER RS RT Spl Lk HT ee Pa 27
Cardin v. State, 73 Md. App. 200, 533 A.2d 928
Se ME, HPP eu had edvtceoescacccnsnededcsesss 21
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct 824, 17
I a wee 25
Costarelli v. Massachusetts, 421 U.S. 193, 95 S. Ct.
ee ee i ecdecaeenctes 27
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S. Ct. 1444, 20
Sc MO hn i pi 12, 13
Holland v. State, 91 Wis. 2d 134, 280 N.W.2d 288
Es ri ha Ey SE Pe (2 en ioe ee 16
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed.
BER LED Sar CSE ae mE, el eee 12
Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S. Ct. 1620, 32
RM & Ff 3 Mr errr Terre ee passim
Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S 205, 93 S. Ct. 1993,
REID nS ar 2 eae ee 33
People v. Adcox, 47 Cal. 3d 207, 253 Cal. Rptr. 55,
ee so os Face ep uhbeneeue be cikean' 17

Vv

TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES - continued
Page

People v. Chavez, 37 Cal. 2d 656, 234 P.2d 632 (Cal.
SR NS 5S Saban ce vend dade ge Gddeniactnsick ce es 17, 22

People v. Sullivan, 173 N.Y. 122, 65 N.E. 989 (1903) .16, 17
People v. Travis, 170 Ill. App. 3d 873, 525 N.E.2d

Pe ES CaS uth a Gacadas cuiad Se cucsekceiee cou 16
Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 107 S. Ct. 1918, 95

in” I Se 10
Rice v. State, 311 Md. 116, 532 A.2d 1357 (Md.

PKG kek weeks DORR s CAs kbs Nad eek te bode ke idwae 20
Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 96 S. Ct. 3001, 49

ee, ARS SR a a ea ps 33
Scarborough v. United States, 522 A.2d 869 (D.C.

SE NS Savi Ce dab cb ena Vike Cake oel hci 25
Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 109 S. Ct.

1443, 103 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1989).............. 8, 29, 31

State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441, 641 P.2d 1285 (1982)
eS ee Ce ee Eee eC Ten Pe 9, 22, 23, 26

Neos peu sePee bashers ts ecb nee+ odeeesdanecnde 13, 18, 20
State v. Axley, 132 Ariz. 383, 646 P.2d 268 (1982) .17, 22
State v. Berndt, 138 Ariz. 41, 672 P.2d 1311 (1983) .18, 23
State v. Boots, 308 Or. 371, 780 P.2d 725 (1989)....... 9

State v. Celaya, 135 Ariz. 248, 660 P.2d 849 (1983)
(ie kent 64 1hO8 be Ue eeeee td eniueé45 0 Ne bbeemennan: 9, 26, 29

State v. Duncan, 312 N.W.2d 519 (Iowa 1981)..... 16, 20

State v. Edwards, 163 Conn. 527, 316 A.2d 387
a 0 Mee ano «6 alks-c oe OR e dc ak Ce cee 20

vi
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES - continued
Page

State v. Encinas, 132 Ariz. 493, 647 P.2d 624
DE ere a Os ne ek a A 7, 9, 18, 32

State v. Hallman, 137 Ariz. 31, 668 P.2d 874 (1983) .... 18
State v. Hazelett, 8 Or. App. 44, 492 P.2d 501 (1972) .16, 20

State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969) ..... 34
State v. King, 67 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 56 (Ct. App., Aug.
PN Ete i0e na V okies deans dee Nebdeedekdn yeu 34

State v. Kinkade, 147 Ariz. 250, 709 P.2d 884 (1985)... . 29

State v. LeGrand (Walter), 153 Ariz. 21, 734 P.2d 563
EC RAI ERE me Pe Pa Ie Pe DIL DOYS Sh Lies eae 32

State v. Lopez, 163 Ariz 108, 786 P.2d 959 (1990)..... 18
State v. Mounce, 150 Ariz. 3, 721 P.2d 661 (Ct. App.

SE beudauubuGds puddenihe cab eee tices cel 29, 32
State v. Poehnelt, 150 Ariz. 136, 722 P.2d 304 (Ct.

SIME LS StS Cah s Wuisdwiases ceeenuaeeaeeeekcass 29
State v. Sanchez, __ Ariz. __, 797 P.2d 703 (Ct.

EN S455 cow aeaveer enna kidhusesnscberss co5és 26
State v. Schad, 163 Ariz. 411, 788 P.2d 1162 (1989)..... Yy
State v. Schad, 142 Ariz. 619, 691 P.2d 710 (1984) .... 3
State v. Schad, 129 Ariz. 557, 633 P.2d 366 (1981)..... 3
State v. Smith (Edward), 160 Ariz. 507, 74 P.2d 811

ee ee aa en a ee 4 eae 18

State v. Smith (Roger), 136 Ariz. 273, 665 P.2d 995
RRs abia hen as Uhan nents sceddavense coke 18, 22

vii
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES - continued
Page
State v. Tims, 143 Ariz. 196, 693 P.2d 333 (1985)..... 29
State v. Vickers, 138 Ariz. 450, 675 P.2d 710 (1983)..... 7

State v. Wilson, 220 Kan. 341, 552 P.2d 931 (1976) .... 26

State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452, 657 P2d 865
PO AIRE cS aii ats ae 10

Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 107 S. Ct. 1676, 95

at Ff AR RT ge 24
United States v. Bedonie, 913 F.2d 782 (10th Cir.

WEA 54 4 SoS dkkMG ERNE oeSeateccuacnkes 6, 8, 23, 26
United States v. Duncan, 850 F.2d 1104 (6th Cir.

CN 650

CONCLUSION

In order for petitioner to prevail, this Court has to
overrule both Johnson and Apodaca and extend the Sixth
Amendment unanimity doctrine to state capital cases.
That would not provide petitioner any greater protection

35

than he now receives under the existing interpretations of
both federal and state constitutions. There is no purpose
to be served by disturbing settled law. If, however, the
federal constitutional provision is extended to Arizona
Revised Statutes §§ 13-451 and -452, petitioner was not
entitled to a specific verdict because murder in Arizona
consists of a single offense that results in unanimity of
verdict regardless of the mode of commission, not con-
ceptually distinct acts that require separate verdicts to
insure unanimity.

Robbery is not a lesser-included offense of the crime
of first-degree murder even if the murder is committed
during a robbery. The due process clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment was satisfied by giving the jurors the
opportunity to find petitioner guilty of second-degree
murder, a noncapital offense.

For the above-stated reasons, respondent urges this
Court to reject petitioner’s contentions and uphold the
opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court.

Respectfully submitted,
Rosert K. Corsin

Attorney General

RONALD L. CrISMON

Acting Chief Counsel
Criminal Division

R. Wayne Forp

(Counsel of Record)
Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for Respondent

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0121%3A07. Public record. Not legal advice.