State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel
229 Ariz. 1
| Ariz. | 2011Background
- Manuel killed Darrell Willeford in a Phoenix pawn shop, firing ten times; surveillance video captured the events and a bag with shell casings and Manuel’s DNA was recovered at the scene.
- Manuel was arrested in October 2004 at a Charlotte, North Carolina hotel; police learned of the murder through an informant and the suspect’s warrants.
- Manuel was indicted on first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, armed robbery, and misconduct involving weapons; the jury found one aggravator, pecuniary gain, and sentenced Manuel to death.
- The case proceeded as an automatic appeal from a capital conviction and death sentence under Arizona law.
- The trial court denied relief on multiple issues raised on appeal, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the death sentence.
- Citations and authorities cited throughout the opinion address Rule 10.2 changes of judge, suppression standards under Buie, prosecutorial conduct, jury questions in penalty, juror misconduct, and the sufficiency of aggravating/mitigating factors under Arizona’s death-penalty framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change-of-judge timeliness under Rule 10.2 | Manuel argues untimely notice should have been granted | State contends timing complied with Rule 10.2(a) | No error; notice untimely under Rule 10.2(a) and denied. |
| Suppression of pistol from hotel room | Gun was fruit of an unlawful search | Buie protective sweep and consent justified the search | Warrantless Buie sweep valid; gun admitted. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during trial | Prosecutor engaged in prejudicial, improper questions/comments | Any misconduct cured by instructions; no prejudice shown | No reversible error; cumulative impact not shown. |
| Jury’s penalty-phase question and guidance | Jury should be allowed to indicate preferred life-sentence form | Court may decide life vs natural life; jury not entitled to recommendation | Court did not abuse discretion; no jury recommendation allowed. |
| Juror misconduct due to intoxication | Intoxication could prejudice the verdict | No demonstrated prejudice; court admonished jurors | No abuse; no reversible prejudice found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep exception to warrant requirement)
- Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009) (limits of vehicle-search incident-to-arrest; preserves Buie exceptions)
- State v. Fisher, 226 Ariz. 563 (2011) (Buie sweep applied in Arizona context; second Buie exception)
- State v. Zawada, 208 Ariz. 232 (2004) (prosecutor’s questioning of experts; ethical limits)
- State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72 (1998) (prosecutor cannot attack experts without evidence)
- State v. Velazquez, 216 Ariz. 300 (2007) (limits on attacking experts; reliance on evidence)