State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde, 233 Ariz. 543

Background

Shawna Forde was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and multiple felonies arising from a May 2009 home invasion in Arivaca, including burglary and robbery, and was sentenced to death for both murders with related prison terms for noncapital counts.
The defense challenged pretrial publicity, moved for venue change, continuances, and challenged eyewitness identifications and other evidentiary issues; the State defended the proceedings as fair overall.
Testimony included a partial DNA match from a ring found in Forde’s purse, eyewitness identification, and evidence of a Colorado minuteman meeting where plans to raid a house were discussed, along with cell-phone texts and other communications.
During penalties, the jury found Enmund/Tison findings and multiple aggravators, and sentenced Forde to death for each murder; several noncapital sentences were later modified for consecutive sentencing issues.
The Arizona Supreme Court conducted an abuse-of-discretion review of the death sentence under § 13-756(A) and addressed numerous constitutional challenges raised by Forde.
The court affirmed the convictions but modified the noncapital sentences so that counts seven and eight run concurrently.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pretrial publicity and venue/continuance rulings	Forde contends publicity was pervasive; venue should have been changed; continuances were needed for fair trial.	State argues publicity was not pervasive enough to presume prejudice; continuances not required, or harmless.	No fundamental error; publicity not presumptively prejudicial; continuances not required.
Dessureault hearing and eyewitness identification	Pretrial Dessureault hearing and earlier identification procedures violated due process.	No state action; Perry controls; Dessureault hearing not required; reliability weighed in trial.	No due-process error; Dessureault hearing not mandated; identification reliability adequately evaluated.
Admissibility and impact of DNA evidence and eyewitness testimony	DNA testimony and eyewitness identification should be limited due to confrontation concerns and reliability.	DNA analyst testimony relied on admissible data; cross-examination available; no violation of confrontation rights.	DNA evidence properly admitted; no fundamental Confrontation Clause error.
Enmund/Tison findings and aggravation phase sequencing	Enmund/Tison findings should precede aggravation considerations to satisfy narrowing principles.	Constitution does not require sequencing; simultaneous consideration is permissible.	No error; simultaneous consideration permitted; jury properly found Enmund/Tison and aggravators.
Constitutionality and application of aggravators (F)(2) and (F)(9); jury instructions	Aggravators improperly broaden death-eligibility and should be narrowly defined; burden-shifting concerns.	Aggravators are valid narrowing mechanisms; instructions properly conveyed burden and standards.	(F)(2) and (F)(9) constitutional as applied; instructions were proper and not fundamentally erroneous.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cruz, 218 Ariz. 149 (2008) (two-step publicity and prejudice review; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental error standard for pretrial issues)
State v. Williams, 166 Ariz. 132 (1987) (Dessureault-type considerations and eyewitness identification)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (limits on due-process cross-examination regarding eyewitnesses)
State v. Moore, 222 Ariz. 1 (2009) (mixed questions of law and fact; standard for reviewing identification rulings)
State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147 (2006) (R.E. 403/404(b) evidentiary rulings in homicide cases)
State v. Schad, 142 Ariz. 619 (1984) (defining elements in felony-murder instructions; risk of error)
State v. Dann III, 220 Ariz. 351 (2009) (Portillo instruction and standard for reasonable-doubt burdens in sentencing)
State v. Roseberry, 210 Ariz. 360 (2005) (mitigation and sentencing guidance in capital cases)
Lynch, 225 Ariz. 27 (2010) (voir dire discretion in large-group settings)
Rutledge, 206 Ariz. 172 (2003) (contemporaneous offenses and the (F)(2) aggravator)
Nelson, 229 Ariz. 180 (2012) (Eighth Amendment narrowing and proportionality in aggravation)