State v. Dixon, 226 Ariz. 545

Background

Dixon was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1978 Deana Bowdoin killing.
Bowdoin, a 21-year-old ASU student, was found deceased in her apartment after being strangled and stabbed; semen was found implicating Dixon, who lived nearby at the time.
DNA matched Dixon in 2001; he had previously lived across the street from Bowdoin and had no known prior contact with her.
Dixon represented himself at trial; jury found premeditated and felony murder; aggravation included a prior conviction and especially cruel/heinous murder; penalty yielded a death sentence.
The State sought, and Dixon challenged, various issues on appeal including prosecutorial misconduct, admissibility of Rule 404(c) evidence, restraints in court, expert testimony, hybrid representation, diary evidence, and continuances.
Arizona Supreme Court independently reviews the death sentence for murders before August 1, 2002, evaluating aggravation and mitigation and ensuring statutory compliance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct from Rule 404(c) evidence	Dixon claims evidence of a 1985 rape shows aberrant sexual propensity and was misused.	Prosecutor relied only on admissible 404(c)(1) evidence and trial court findings; no misconduct.	No reversible misconduct; admissibility properly supported by 404(c)(1) findings.
Admissibility of 404(c) other-acts evidence	Similarity to the charged rape supports propensity; evidence improbable harms outweighed by probative value.	Court properly balanced prejudice and probative value; sufficient basis for admission.	Court properly admitted 404(c)(1) evidence; not error.
Constitutionality of restraints (Deck-based analysis for leg brace/stun belt)	Visible restraints violated right to fair trial; Deck requires case-specific findings.	Leg brace/stun belt not conclusively visible; no case-specific error requiring reversal.	Leg brace not shown to be visible; stun belt issue reviewed for fundamental error; no reversible error.
Admission of Dr. Keen's testimony under Confrontation Clause	Use of autopsy data via Keen without Crawford admission constitutes testimonial hearsay.	Medical examiner may rely on autopsy data to form independent conclusions; not hearsay violation.	No Confrontation Clause error; testimony upheld.
Denial of hybrid representation	Dixon should be allowed to hybrid-represent; advisory counsel adequate for some tasks.	No Constitutional right to hybrid representation; trial court did not abuse discretion.	Denial of hybrid representation did not constitute abuse of discretion.
Exclusion of diary evidence	Diary entry could show Deana's sexual activity/consent and support defense theory.	Diary evidence is sexual conduct under rape shield; admissibility specifically limited; insufficient foundation.	Exclusion affirmed; diary evidence properly barred under rape shield.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Velazquez, 216 Ariz. 300 (2007) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct review in criminal appeals)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental error standard in prosecutorial misconduct appeals)
State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40 (2004) (rule 404(c) requirements and admissibility framework)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (case-specific determination required for restraints visible to jurors)
State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494 (2005) (concealed restraints and non-visibility considerations)
State v. Womble, 225 Ariz. 91 (2010) (Confrontation Clause analysis in medical examiner testimony)
State v. Cornell, 179 Ariz. 314 (1994) (hybrid representation and trial court discretion)
State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484 (1996) (disfavored status of hybrid representation)
State v. Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. 46 (1995) (proportionality and capital sentencing framework)
State v. Bocharski, 218 Ariz. 476 (2008) (jury instruction on mitigating circumstances and 'above the norm' standard)
State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (2006) (unanimity requirement for mitigating-sufficiency standard)
State v. Harrod, 218 Ariz. 268 (2008) (residual doubt and related evidentiary issues in capital cases)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (capital punishment framework and proportionality considerations)
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) (death penalty presumption and burden on defendant to show mitigation)