State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer
242 Ariz. 44
| Ariz. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Fischer, an attorney and former police officer, was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for the death of Lee, found with a single gunshot wound to the head and a handgun in his right hand.
- Physical evidence: the gun was Fischer’s; blood on Fischer’s left foot and pajama leg; gunshot residue and DNA/fingerprint testing performed; experts testified about blood spatter, gun position, GSR, and blackout from alcohol.
- State’s theory: Fischer shot Lee and staged the scene to appear self-inflicted. Fischer maintained memory gaps and confusion about events; denied firing the gun.
- After conviction, the trial court granted Fischer’s Rule 24.1(c)(1) motion for a new trial, finding the verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence and concluding no physical evidence showed Fischer fired the gun.
- The court of appeals reversed after independently reweighing evidence and concluding the jury verdict was not a miscarriage of justice.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the trial court, vacating parts of the court of appeals opinion, holding appellate courts must defer and review only for substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fischer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper role of trial court in Rule 24.1(c)(1) new-trial motions | Trial court should be limited; may grant new trial only for manifestly unreasonable or outrageous verdicts | Trial court may weigh evidence, assess credibility, and set verdict aside if contrary to weight of evidence | Trial court may weigh evidence and assess credibility under Rule 24.1(c)(1); its discretion is broad but not unlimited |
| Standard for appellate review of trial court's grant of new trial | Appellate court may independently reweigh evidence and reverse if it disagrees | Appellate court should defer and only reverse if no substantial evidence supports trial court | Appellate courts must not reweigh; must determine whether substantial evidence supports trial court's ruling |
| Relationship between Rule 24.1 new trial and Rule 20 acquittal standards | Collapse standards: new trial should follow strict Rule 20 (light most favorable to State) approach | Maintain distinct standards; new trial allows judge to reweigh evidence unlike Rule 20 acquittal | Distinct standards preserved: Rule 20 (no reweighing) vs Rule 24.1 (judge may reweigh and judge credibility) |
| Application to facts: whether trial court abused discretion granting new trial | Verdict supported by evidence; trial court improperly substituted its judgment for jury’s | Trial court properly found verdict contrary to weight of evidence given lack of physical proof defendant fired gun | Trial court did not abuse its discretion; substantial evidence supports its order granting new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Markle, 119 Ariz. 159 (trial court must be able to grant new trials where justice requires)
- Huntsman v. First Nat’l Bank, 29 Ariz. 574 (trial judge may weigh evidence and grant new trial when verdict is against weight of evidence)
- Brownell v. Freedman, 39 Ariz. 385 (trial judge as ‘thirteenth juror’ authority to set aside verdict)
- Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 51 (language suggesting trial judge limited to only shocking or outrageous verdicts—disavowed in part)
- Clifton, 134 Ariz. 345 (Rule 20 acquittal standard: view evidence in light most favorable to State; no reweighing by judge)