State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph, 230 Ariz. 296

Joseph murdered Tommar Brown during a burglary, injuring Darlene and Jerry in an apartment in Maricopa County.
A jury convicted Joseph of felony murder, attempted second-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, burglary, and weapons misconduct; two aggravating factors were found (prior serious offense and victim under 15).
Joseph did not present mitigating evidence in the penalty phase; jury imposed death for Tommar’s murder and term sentences for other convictions.
State sought automatic appellate review of the death sentence under Arizona law; the issues focus on Confrontation Clause, Enmund/Tison instructions, mitigation waiver, and review of the death sentence.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, addressing the asserted legal challenges and concluding no reversible error on the major issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause violation?	State contends Keen could testify based on Kohlmeier’s autopsy report; report not admitted.	Lovelle argues testimony violated Confrontation Clause by relying on non-testifying expert’s report.	No error; Keen testified based on his own review of materials; report not admitted and witness cross-examined.
Enmund/Tison instruction required?	State argues no instruction needed because actual killer was the defendant.	Lovelle contends lack of instruction on intent undermines death penalty viability.	No abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence of felony murder with actual killer; Enmund/Tison instruction not required.
Mitigation waiver validity?	State argues trial court properly ensured awareness and voluntariness of waiver.	Lovelle contends waiver may not be knowing or voluntary.	Waiver voluntary, knowing, and informed given substantial inquiry and defendant’s conduct.
Review of death sentence—aggravating factors?	State asserts two valid aggravators supported by the record.	Lovelle challenges sufficiency of aggravating evidence.	Two aggravators supported; no abuse of discretion in death sentence after mitigating considerations.

State v. Smith, 215 Ariz. 221 (Ariz. 2007) (Confrontation-Clause framework for using non-testifying experts)
State v. Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298 (Ariz. 2007) (Limits of admissible expert reliance on autopsy materials)
United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227 (2d Cir. 2006) (Autopsy materials not testimonial when used to explain expert’s opinion)
State v. Snelling, 236 P.3d 409 (Ariz. 2010) (Non-testifying witness opinion basis admissible if properly explained)