Opinion ID: 4530412
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: State v. Arias

Text: ¶18 Martinez prosecuted the defendant for first degree murder. At trial, during a bench conference outside the presence of the jury while discussing defense counsel’s attempt to introduce a witness’s testimony that the victim told Arias he wanted to “fking kill himself,” Martinez said he would “f’ing want to kill [him]self” if he were married to defense counsel. Martinez promptly apologized but disparaged counsel again by suggesting she go back to law school. Defense counsel moved to dismiss the indictment or notice of intent to seek the death penalty based, in part, on Martinez’s comments. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the comments were made outside the presence of the jury, no juror indicated knowledge of the incident, and Martinez was quick to acknowledge his error and expressed regret. The court of appeals affirmed Arias’ convictions, but described Martinez’s pervasive misconduct, including his comments to defense counsel at issue here, as “an egregious case of misconduct by a highly-experienced prosecutor” and referred the matter to the Bar for review. State v. Arias, 1 CA-CR 15-0302, at 27 ¶ 77 (Ariz. App. April 21, 2020). ¶19 Thus, in Morris, Beemon, Gallardo, Lynch II, and Arias, Arizona appellate courts found that Martinez engaged in various forms of prosecutorial misconduct that did not warrant reversal of convictions. To date, Martinez’s prosecutorial misconduct in these cases has not resulted in disciplinary findings of ethical misconduct. 1