State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner
230 Ariz. 60
| Ariz. | 2012Background
- Hausner committed a random Phoenix-area shooting spree (2005–2006), resulting in six murder victims and numerous non-capital offenses.
- Dieteman testified against Hausner; police linked Hausner to the shootings via surveillance, firearms, and matching shell casings.
- Emergency wiretaps were authorized for Dieteman’s phone and Hausner’s home/car; post-wiretap orders were pursued for continued surveillance.
- Hausner was convicted of eighty offenses across five indictments and sentenced to death for six murders; one animal-cruelty conviction was reversed on appeal.
- The trial court joined five indictments for trial and admitted extensive circumstantial and “other acts” evidence during guilt and penalty phases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dismissal of jurors 235A and 164B violated Witherspoon/Witt | Hausner argues removal harmed death-qualified jury composition. | State contends dismissal was permissible under controlling Arizona standards. | No reversible error; trial court properly struck juror 235A and harmless as to 164B. |
| Admissibility of wiretap conversations under emergency wiretap statute | Hausner asserts lack of emergency and statutory compliance invalidates wiretap. | State argues emergency conditions and compliance with §13-3015 permit interception. | Emergency wiretap upheld; statutory requirements and due-diligence considerations satisfied. |
| Joinder and consolidation of multiple indictments | Hausner challenges joinder as prejudicial; argues improper severance. | State contends offenses shared a common scheme and were properly consolidated. | Joinder affirmed; no abuse of discretion in consolidation. |
| Sufficiency of animal-cruelty evidence (Apache) | State offered sufficient evidence Hausner shot multiple animals; Apache implicated. | Evidence did not prove Hausner shot Apache beyond reasonable doubt. | Conviction for Apache animal cruelty reversed; insufficient nexus to prove shooter. |
| Mitigation waiver in penalty phase and related counsel withdrawal | Hausner claims waiver prevented meaningful mitigation consideration; requests independent review. | State argues waiver was voluntary and governed by standards; counsel withdrawal properly denied. | Waiver upheld; Court endorses procedures to ensure informed waiver; no constitutional error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ring, 200 Ariz. 267 (Ariz. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for suppression; precedent on wiretaps and suppression)
- Prince v. State (Prince II), 226 Ariz. 516 (Ariz. 2011) (death-penalty voir dire and juror-striking standards)
- State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (Ariz. 2006) (application of admissibility and evidentiary rules; cross-reference to juror-related rulings)
- State v. Ives, 187 Ariz. 102 (Ariz. 1996) (common-scheme/plan analysis for joinder/severance)
- State v. Schurz, 176 Ariz. 46 (Ariz. 1993) (interpretation of cold-blooded and related terms in aggravators)
- State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (Ariz. 2006) (standards for aggravating-factor review in capital cases)