State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller, 234 Ariz. 31

Background

In 2005 Miller's home burned; his employee Steven Duffy admitted arson and cooperated with police. Miller then allegedly solicited four men to kill Duffy and his family.
In February 2006 five people (Steven, Tammy, Shane, and Tammy’s children Cassandra and Jacob) were found shot to death; three guns were used and physical evidence later linked Miller to the murders.
Miller was indicted for the murders and tried in 2011; a jury convicted him of five counts of first-degree murder, burglary, and four counts of solicitation, and found four aggravators including multiple homicides and witness elimination.
The jury sentenced Miller to death for each murder; Miller appealed raising speedy-trial, due process, evidentiary, consolidation, instruction, sufficiency, and aggravator/penalty challenges.
The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed preserved and forfeited claims (some for fundamental error) and affirmed convictions and death sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Miller)	Held
Speedy trial (Sixth Amendment)	Delay largely caused by defense; no prejudice	Systemic indigent-defense failures and state oversight failures produced unconstitutional delay and prejudice	No Sixth Amendment violation: most delay attributable to defense counsel; Miller showed no prejudice; no fundamental error
Adequacy of preparation time (Due Process)	Eleven months was sufficient, especially with multiple counsel and no objection below	Eleven months was inadequate; one prospective counsel said three years was needed	No fundamental error: Miller’s new counsel did not request more time or assert inadequacy; multi-attorney defense undermined claim
Consolidation of murder and solicitation counts (Rule 13.3)	Joinder proper because offenses were part of a common plan; consolidation did not prejudice jury	Solicitation and murder should have been severed; consolidation allowed improper inference of guilt	Affirmed: joinder was appropriate because solicitations and murders were part of common scheme; no compelling prejudice shown; jury instructed to consider counts separately
Admission of victims’ recorded statements (hearsay, confrontation, 404(b))	Statements admissible under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing; confrontation claim extinguished	Recordings contained hearsay, impermissible other-acts, and character evidence; prejudicial	No fundamental error: Rule 804(b)(6) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing) applied; statements admissible despite inflammatory content; limited probative value but overwhelming evidence of guilt and strategic defense choice reduced prejudice
Prior-felon reference / mistrial	Curative instruction cured any inadvertent disclosure; no prosecutorial intent	Jurors heard inadmissible prior-conviction reference warranting mistrial	No abuse of discretion: statement brief, unelicited, court issued curative instruction with parties’ agreement; no juror reaction observed
Firearms expert admissibility (Frye/Daubert)	Frye applied at trial time; expert testimony admissible under Frye	Newer Daubert-based Rule 702 should apply retroactively; toolmark methodology unreliable	No fundamental error: Frye governed because Daubert-based rule was adopted after trial; expert admissible under Frye; no Frye hearing requested below
Sufficiency of solicitation convictions	Evidence (offers, payments, surveillance, specificity) supported solicitation convictions	Solicited persons did not believe Miller was serious; insufficiency	Convictions affirmed: solicitation requires only defendant’s intent and request; substantial evidence supported each count
Accomplice mitigator instruction at penalty	General mitigation instructions sufficed; no identified uncharged accomplice evidence	Jury should be allowed to consider unprosecuted accomplice as mitigating	No abuse of discretion: evidence did not identify an accomplice or show minor participation; requested instruction not required
Multiple-homicides aggravator (F)(8) unanimity/form)	Jury instructions showed murders were temporally, spatially, motivationally related	Verdict form lacked separate F(8) finding per count, violating unanimity	No fundamental error: given murders occurred together for same motive, reasonable juror would find (F)(8) for each count despite single box on form
Witness-elimination aggravator (F)(12) and double-counting	Evidence showed motive to silence cooperating witnesses; double-counting not problematic	Jury impermissibly used same fact to prove both F(8) and F(12)	No abuse of discretion: F(8) (existence of multiple murders) and F(12) (motive to eliminate witnesses) are distinct for aggravation purposes; no prejudicial double-counting shown
Death sentence proportionality / mitigation weight	Mitigating evidence found insufficient to call for leniency	Mitigation (bipolar disorder, childhood issues, family history) warranted life	No abuse of discretion: substantial mitigation presented but not sufficiently substantial to overcome aggravation; death sentences affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause principles; forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception can extinguish confrontation right)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (discusses wrongful-procurement doctrine and intent requirement for forfeiture-by-wrongdoing)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (federal standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (historical general-acceptance standard for scientific evidence)
Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (allocation of pretrial-delay responsibility between state and defense counsel)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (retroactivity principle for new constitutional rules of criminal procedure)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (right to effective assistance and time for counsel to prepare in capital cases)
State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (prosecutorial role and duty to ensure fair trial)