Case Title: State v. Reeden

Citation: 106 Ariz. 409, 477 P.2d 240

Docket Number: 2122

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1970-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
106 Ariz. 409 (1970) 477 P.2d 240 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. John M. Von REEDEN, Appellant. No. 2122. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. December 2, 1970. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Machmer, Lehman & Cantor, by Gerald A. Machmer, Phoenix, for appellant. McFARLAND, Justice. John M. Von Reeden, hereafter referred to as defendant was tried on October 24, 1967, on a charge of murder and on November 1, 1967, found guilty by the jury of murder second degree, and sentenced to a term of not less than 10 years nor more than 15 years in the Arizona State Penitentiary. From a denial of his motion for a new trial he appeals. The defendant was charged with murdering his wife, Rebecca Lynn Von Reeden on July 9, 1967. On that date and at the time of his trial he was free on bond in connection with a pending appeal of a previous conviction of eleven counts of Grand Theft by Embezzlement, Felonies. Defendant during the murder trial did not take the stand and testify. The Court of Appeals, 9 Ariz. App. 190, 450 P.2d 702, on February 25, 1969, reversed for a new trial the embezzlement convictions and such charges were dismissed. Defendant thereafter filed a motion for a new trial under Rules of Criminal Procedure, 310, subd. 3, A.R.S. 17, upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence and set forth: The trial court after hearing denied the motion for a new trial which was made two years after rendition of the verdict. Defendant appealed under provisions of A.R.S. 17, Rules of Criminal Procedure § 348B contending the trial court erred in not granting his motion for a new trial. This court will not disturb a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial unless it appears there has been an abuse of discretion, State v. George, 100 Ariz. 350, 414 P.2d 730; State v. Sorrell, 95 Ariz. 220, 388 P.2d 429; State v. Quintana, 92 Ariz. 267, 376 P.2d 130; State v. Turner, 92 Ariz. 214, 375 P.2d 567. The law gives broad discretion to a court and permits a motion for new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence after time for appellate review. In State v. Johnson, 99 Ariz. 52, 406 P.2d 403 in passing on the question of whether it is proper to introduce evidence of a conviction of a felony for impeachment when the conviction is on appeal we said: A similar argument was presented in State v. Barker, 94 Ariz. 383, 385 P.2d 516 in which the court refused to instruct the county attorney to not ask questions in regard to a conviction had some 16 years before, we said: As we held in Barker, supra, one who invokes his privilege not to take the witness stand for whatever reason he chooses, cannot as a basis for rehearing complain that his case was prejudiced by such act. Defendant attacks the constitutionality of Arizona's procedure of permitting the introduction into evidence of a prior conviction of a felony for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the witness. This procedure has survived such attacks because it is founded upon the theory that it assists the triers of fact to weigh the evidence. Udall on Evidence, § 67. Sibley v. Jeffreys, 76 Ariz. 340, 264 P.2d 831; State v. Boodry, 96 Ariz. 259, 394 P.2d 196, cert. den. 379 U.S. 949, 85 S. Ct. 448, 13 L. Ed. 2d 546; State v. Daymus, 90 Ariz. 294, 367 P.2d 647. On the other hand we believe it is equally necessary to present to a jury evidence which will assist them in determining the complete story of the crime. State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Villavicencio, 95 Ariz. 199, 388 P.2d 245; State v. Barker, supra; State v. Foggy, 101 Ariz. 459, 420 P.2d 934, cert. den. 386 U.S. 1025, 87 S. Ct. 1386, 18 L. Ed. 2d 468. In the instant case defendant not having taken the stand at his trial he cannot now maintain that a reversal of his prior conviction creates new material evidence. He knew the status of his prior conviction and could have so explained to the jury had he taken the stand in the event the county attorney asked him the impeaching question. State v. Weis, 92 Ariz. 254, 375 P.2d 735, cert. den. 389 U.S. 899, 88 S. Ct. 226, 19 L. Ed. 2d 221. He cannot now complain. State v. Barker, supra. Judgment affirmed. LOCKWOOD, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., concur.