State v. Eddington, 244 P.3d 76

Eddington was convicted of second-degree murder after a jury trial and sentenced to sixteen years.
During voir dire, a Pima County sheriff's deputy veniremember testified he knew many state witnesses and worked security in court.
Eddington moved to strike the deputy for cause; the trial court denied the motion and he used a peremptory strike to exclude him.
The deputy's employment with the investigating agency raised statutory concerns under § 21-211(2) (indirect/direct interest disqualifies juror).
The jury convicted Eddington of second-degree murder; defense challenged jury instructions on second-degree murder and related lesser offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the deputy should have been stricken for cause.	Eddington argues deputy had indirect interest and knew witnesses.	Eddington contends deputy's impartiality could be compromised.	Abuse of discretion; error found but harmless.
Whether the second-degree murder instruction was correct.	Eddington contends the fourth point improperly duplicative and confusing.	Eddington's interpretation is incorrect; instruction consistent with law when read as a whole.	No reversible error; instruction was correct.
Whether the LeBlanc heat-of-passion instruction impacted verdict.	Garcia should apply; LeBlanc may mislead jury in heat-of-passion context.	Any error was not prejudicial because provocation issue was adequately conveyed.	No prejudice; harmless error.
Whether the manslaughter instruction misstated the law or limited consideration of lesser offenses.	Reckless manslaughter should be considered concurrently with heat-of-passion manslaughter.	Jury was properly instructed on lesser offenses and their relationship to greater offense.	No reversible error; no prejudice.

State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 951 P.2d 869 (1997) (burden on challenge to juror impartiality; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127, 14 P.3d 997 (2000) (trial court best observes juror fairness; Rule 18.4(b) discretion)
State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 848 P.2d 1375 (1993) (peace officer not automatically disqualified; § 21-202(B)(5) context)
Lopez v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 177 Ariz. 371, 868 P.2d 954 (1993) (indirect interest under § 21-211(2); appellate review of statutory application)
State v. Granville, 211 Ariz. 468, 123 P.3d 662 (2005) (Granville principle on reading and contextual interpretation of statute)
State v. Garcia, 220 Ariz. 49, 202 P.3d 514 (App. 2008) (LeBlanc instruction and lesser-included offense implications)
State v. Hickman, 205 Ariz. 192, 68 P.3d 418 (2003) (harmless error review after improper jury instruction)
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (defendant's in-custody appearance and presumption of innocence)
State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 917 P.2d 200 (1996) (Rule 9.3(d) investigator presence at counsel table; relevance to juror impartiality)