Court Opinion

ID: 9915056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 16:01:50.161483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:56.958415
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                 AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

                                    IN THE
             ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
                                DIVISION ONE

                       STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

                                        v.

              WALTER HAROLD MITCHELL, III, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0521
                               FILED 1-4-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. P1300CR202100015
               The Honorable Krista M. Carman, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Eric K. Knobloch
Counsel for Appellee

Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan PLC, Scottsdale
By Stephen L. Duncan
Counsel for Appellant
                            STATE v. MITCHELL
                            Decision of the Court

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Vice
Chief Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1           Walter Harold Mitchell, III, appeals his conviction and
sentences for abandonment and concealment of a dead body. For the
following reasons, we affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2              We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
verdicts. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93 (2013). Mitchell owned and
operated a whole-body donation company, Future Genex, in Washington.
When the company dissolved in 2020, Mitchell moved to Arizona, taking
some of the remaining donated body parts.

¶3             In November 2020, Mitchell scattered the remaining body
parts in the Arizona desert to make a political statement. A couple weeks
later, hikers near Prescott reported they found a human hand and arm in a
remote area, and a few miles away, hunters found two human heads.
Officers investigated the areas and found 29 body parts consisting of heads,
arms, shoulders, knees, feet, and legs. They found these body parts under
brush and trees, in trash piles, or buried. Some parts had metal tags and
were tied together with twine. Officers found a plastic bag nearby with a
label bearing the name “Future Genex.”

¶4            DNA analysis of the tissue samples revealed the dispersed
body parts came from a total of nine individuals. All the individuals were
predeceased and had donated their body to Future Genex or one of
Mitchell’s affiliated organizations. Mitchell was indicted on 29 counts of
abandonment or concealment of a dead body. See A.R.S. §§ 13-2926(A), 13-
701, 13-702, 13-801.

¶5           Before trial, Mitchell stated in an affidavit that he scattered the
body parts to “create an instant platform in order to warn the public and
prevent a credible threat to the public safety from a nontransplant
anatomical donation industry that serves a global clientele distributing
many tens of thousands of nontransplant specimens annually.” He asserted

                                       2
                           STATE v. MITCHELL
                           Decision of the Court

his conduct fell under the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act’s permitted
use of body parts for “education.” The State moved to preclude such a
defense and any evidence offered to support it, arguing it would be
“irrelevant, confuse the issues, and [could] be presented solely for the
purpose of jury nullification.” Mitchell moved to dismiss the charges
contending that the indictment was insufficient as a matter of law because
of his affirmative defense. The court denied both motions.

¶6             The jurors heard testimony regarding the common usage of
“education” in the body donation industry, and the purpose for which the
donors thought the bodies would be used. An FBI agent testified as an
expert witness that in the anatomical donation community, education is
“medical education” and “refers to what you traditionally think of at a
medical school but also this continuing education that surgeons go through
all the time to learn new techniques.” He noted the industry standard for
the disposition of unused remains is cremation. Relatives of the deceased
donors testified that Mitchell informed them the donated parts would be
used for research and teaching surgical procedures.

¶7             Mitchell testified that he scattered the body parts in high
traffic areas and expected someone to find them a couple days later. He
claimed he did it intentionally to warn the public about insufficient
regulation. And he conceded that he did not notify anyone about the body
parts and “buried” some of the parts “out in the desert,” despite his
contention that he wanted them found quickly.

¶8           When discussing final jury instructions, defense counsel
argued that definitions of “transplantation,” “therapy,” “research,” and
“education” from the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act were not part of
Arizona law, and the instructions should explicitly state the definitions
were not in Arizona law. The court denied the request finding the
explanation unnecessary.

¶9            The court instructed the jury that “[t]he terms
‘transplantation’, ‘therapy’, ’research’ and ‘education’ are not defined in the
Revised Arizona Anatomical Gift Act.” But that “[i]n determining the
meaning of these words, [they] may consider the common meaning and the
following language from the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act”: “Education
posits the use of the whole body or parts to teach medical professionals and
others about human anatomy and its characteristics.”

¶10         The jury found Mitchell guilty on all 29 counts. The court
sentenced Mitchell to aggravated, concurrent sentences of 2.5 years in

                                      3
                            STATE v. MITCHELL
                            Decision of the Court

prison on Counts 1–24; and aggravated, concurrent sentences of 3.75 years
on Counts 25–29. These sentences run consecutively for a total sentence of
6.25 years, with 671 days of presentence incarceration credit. Mitchell
timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction. Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§
12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, 13-4033(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶11            Mitchell asserts that the term “education” in the Revised
Uniform Anatomical Gift Act is unconstitutionally vague. See State v.
Western, 168 Ariz. 169, 171 (1991) (“The due process clause of the fourteenth
amendment does not permit the state to deprive a person of liberty for
violating a statute whose terms are so vague, indefinite and uncertain that
their meaning cannot be reasonably ascertained.”) (cleaned up). Mitchell
failed to raise his constitutional vagueness challenge before the trial court.
“However, when, as here, a defendant claims that a statute is
unconstitutionally vague, we may consider that claim for the first time on
appeal.” See State v. Lefevre, 193 Ariz. 385, 389, ¶ 15 (App. 1998).

¶12            We review de novo whether a statute passes constitutional
muster. State v. Arevalo, 249 Ariz. 370, 373, ¶ 9 (2020). A statute is
presumptively constitutional, and the party challenging its validity bears
the burden of demonstrating otherwise. Id. We give the language of the
statute its plain and ordinary meaning. See State v. Luviano, 255 Ariz. 225,
228, ¶ 10 (2023).

¶13           “A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not give
persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it
prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will
apply it.” State v. McMahon, 201 Ariz. 548, 551, ¶ 7 (App. 2002) (citing
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108–09 (1972)). “Due process does
not require, however, that a statute be drafted with absolute precision. It
requires only that the language of a statute convey a definite warning of the
proscribed conduct.” Id. at ¶ 8 (cleaned up). “A statute is not
unconstitutionally vague solely because it fails to explicitly define one of its
terms or because the provision is susceptible to more than one
interpretation.” See Lefevre, 193 Ariz. at 389, ¶ 15.

¶14          A person commits abandonment and concealment of a dead
body by “knowingly mov[ing] a dead human body or parts of a human
body with the intent to abandon or conceal the dead human body or parts.”
A.R.S. § 13-2926(A). “This section does not apply to the disposition,
transportation or other handling of dead human remains for any purpose

                                       4
                            STATE v. MITCHELL
                            Decision of the Court

authorized under . . . [the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.]” A.R.S. §
13-2926(B). Mitchell admits that he scattered the body parts near Prescott,
but relies on the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act’s definition of
“anatomical gift” to argue that his conduct is permissible: “a donation of all
or part of a human body to take effect after the donor’s death for the
purpose of transplantation, therapy, research or education.” A.R.S. § 36-
841(3) (emphasis added). He argues that his conduct falls under the
permissive use of a dead human body for “education” and that instructing
the jurors to define education by its “common usage . . . failed to channel
the discretion of the jurors because [the] definition of education is too
broad.”

¶15           That the legislature did not explicitly define “education” does
not make the statute unconstitutionally vague. See Lefevre, 193 Ariz. at 390,
¶ 18. “Education” is a commonly used and understood term that a person
of ordinary intelligence can discern. It is used many times in the Revised
Uniform Anatomical Gift Act and is always used in concert with other
terms that inform its context: “research and education”; or “transplantation,
therapy, research and education.” See, e.g., A.R.S. §§ 36-851.02(3), -861(B).
And the jury had the definition from the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act that
links education to “medical education.”

¶16            Although Mitchell contends that the court’s instruction
simply told the jurors to define “education” by “the ‘common usage’ in the
applicable communities,” the record shows that the instructions defined
education in greater detail. Mitchell does not offer a better definition of
“education,” an argument why the term or provided definition is
ambiguous, or an explanation why a narrower definition provides him
relief. A statute is not vague simply because the jury did not agree with
Mitchell’s understanding of “education.” That a statute “require[s] a jury
upon occasion to determine a question of reasonableness is not sufficient to
make it too vague to afford a practical guide to permissible conduct.”
Lefevre, 193 Ariz. at 391, ¶ 23 (citing United States v. Ragen, 314 U.S. 513, 523
(1942)).

¶17           The plain text of Section 36-841(3) does not permit one to
scatter donated body parts in the woods for “education.” Mitchell had fair
notice that Arizona law forbids his conduct. See McMahon, 201 Ariz. at 551,
¶ 7. Section 36-841 is not unconstitutionally vague.

                                       5
                  STATE v. MITCHELL
                  Decision of the Court

                     CONCLUSION

¶18   We affirm Mitchell’s convictions and sentences.

                 AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                 FILED: AA

                               6