Opinion ID: 4530412
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State v. Beemon

Text: ¶12 Martinez prosecuted the defendant for murder. Beemon testified during the guilt phase of his trial, admitting a 1997 drug conviction without mentioning a 1984 robbery conviction that the trial court had ruled inadmissible during that phase. State v. Beemon, 1 CA-CR-05-1161, at 16 ¶ 23 (Ariz. App. Feb. 21, 2008), https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2008/1%20CA-CR%20051161-82958.PDF. ¶13 During the aggravation phase opening statement and closing argument, Martinez “attacked” Beemon for his “dishonesty” in failing to reveal his 1984 robbery conviction during his guilt-phase testimony. Id. at 17 ¶ 27. Martinez also insisted at a bench conference during the aggravation phase that the defendant had no right to “withhold information” from the jury regarding the robbery conviction. Id. at 17–18 ¶ 27. The court of appeals concluded that Martinez’s remarks were “clearly improper” because the trial court had precluded mention of the 1984 conviction. Id. ¶14 The court of appeals also described Martinez’s characterization of defense counsel’s argument in the aggravation phase as “reprehensible” and “both improper and unprofessional,” notwithstanding the “apparent vigor of defense counsel’s argument.” Id. at 18–22 ¶¶ 28–32. There, Martinez repeatedly analogized defense counsel’s argument to Hitlerian propaganda tactics—the “big lie”—in an attempt to rebut the defense’s claim 5 IN RE JUAN M. MARTINEZ Opinion of the Court that Martinez was misleading the jury. Id. The court of appeals affirmed Beemon’s conviction and sentence, finding that reversal for prosecutorial misconduct was unwarranted, but instructed the court’s clerk to forward a copy of its decision to the Bar to review Martinez’s conduct. Id. at 21–22 ¶¶ 32–33.