Title: State v. Decello
Citation: 113 Ariz. 255, 550 P.2d 633
Docket Number: 2892-2
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: June 7, 1976

113 Ariz. 255 (1976) 550 P.2d 633 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Gene Vincent DECELLO, Appellant. No. 2892-2. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. June 7, 1976. Rehearing Denied July 13, 1976. *256 Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, and Teresa S. Thayer, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by H. Allen Gerhardt, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of guilt to the crime of first degree murder, A.R.S. §§ 13-451 and 452, and a sentence of life imprisonment. We must answer the following questions on appeal: The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. On the morning of 12 May 1973, the body of John Sutter was found by his landlord in the room that he rented. The body contained numerous stab wounds. Defendant made some incriminating statements to his friends and an indictment charging the defendant with murder was filed 22 May 1973. Trial to the court without a jury was held on 24 October 1973 and defendant was found guilty of first degree murder. On 3 June 1974, this court remanded the case to the Maricopa County Superior Court for a hearing to determine if the defendant did, in fact, waive his right to a trial by jury. See State v. Decello, 111 Ariz. 46, 523 P.2d 74 (1974). The trial court found, on 21 August 1974, that there was no waiver of a trial by jury, and a second trial was held on 25 and 26 March 1975. Defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in the Arizona State Prison on 23 April 1975 from which he appeals. IS THIS AN "OLD RULE" OR "NEW RULE" CASE? The present Rules of Criminal Procedure became effective 1 September 1973. Rule 1.5 reads as follows: The Comment to that rule states: The indictment in this matter was filed on 22 May 1973 and was therefore commenced prior to 1 September 1973. It is therefore an "old rule" case even though the new trial was held after 1 September 1973. PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS Even though this is an "old rule" case there is an exception in the case of incompetency and mental examinations: After the new trial was ordered in this matter, the defendant moved, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (1973), for a mental examination and non-disclosure of reports. The non-disclosure request was overly broad, it being the contention that the prosecution and the court were entitled only to the mental examiner's conclusion and nothing more. The Honorable Harold Martin, who heard this particular motion, granted the motion for rehearing but refused to order non-disclosure. The following transpired: The defendant was examined and cooperated to the extent that he discussed facts of the crime itself. The report, together with a recital of the defendant's statements concerning the crime, were given to the court and the county attorney. These statements were at variance with the statements defendant made while testifying at the first trial. On 25 February 1975, the Honorable Morris Rozar granted defendant's motion to delete from the mental reports statements of the defendant concerning the crime. Judge Rozar disqualified himself from hearing the case and had it transferred to another division of the Superior Court for trial. Disclosure of these reports to the county attorney was a violation of the law as it existed both before and after the Rules of Criminal Procedure (1973). State v. Small, 20 Ariz. App. 530, 514 P.2d 283 (1973); State v. Gonzales, 111 Ariz. 38, 523 P.2d 66 (1974). Rule 11.4, subparagraph (a), at the time of the trial read as follows: And the Comment to Rule 11.4(a) read as follows: These rules were amended in May of 1975 effective 1 August 1975 to make it even more clear: It was error for defendant's statements concerning the crime to be made available to the county attorney even though the information was not introduced at the trial. COMMENT ON DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO TESTIFY The defendant did not take the stand and testify in his own behalf. The *258 only witness called by the defense was defendant's wife who did not testify extensively. The deputy county attorney, during his opening argument to the jury, made the following statement: Our statute reads: The United States Supreme Court has stated that the United States Constitution prohibits comment on the defendant's failure to testify at trial. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106; reh. den. 381 U.S. 957, 85 S. Ct. 1797, 14 L. Ed. 2d 730 (1965). The comment "no one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary to what was testified to you by the witnesses" was certainly calculated to point out to the jury that the defendant had not taken the stand and testified and was, we believe, fundamental error. State v. Rhodes, 110 Ariz. 237, 517 P.2d 507 (1973); State v. Acosta, 101 Ariz. 127, 416 P.2d 560 (1966); State v. Smith, 101 Ariz. 407, 420 P.2d 278 (1966); State v. White, 16 Ariz. App. 279, 492 P.2d 1217 (1972); State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz. App. 144, 430 P.2d 723 (1967); Griffin v. California, supra. Reversed and remanded for new trial. STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and HAYS, HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concurring.