State v. Fischer
238 Ariz. 309
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In December 2010, Robert Fischer (defendant) visited his step-daughter's home; early morning police found Lee Radder dead from a close‑contact gunshot to the right eye with Fischer’s pistol in Radder’s hand.
- Fischer was tried for murder; the jury convicted him of second‑degree murder.
- After the verdict the trial court denied a judgment of acquittal but granted Fischer’s motion for a new trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence; the court found key forensic evidence favored suicide.
- The State voluntarily dismissed the indictment to preserve its right to appeal the grant of a new trial; the Court of Appeals considered whether the appeal was moot and proceeded to merits.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on weighing conflicting forensic (blood spatter, DNA, GSR, bloody fingerprint) and testimonial evidence.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of a new trial, reinstated the guilty verdict, and remanded for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fischer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s voluntary dismissal rendered the appeal moot | Dismissal does not moot an appeal from an order granting a new trial because the court can reinstate the guilty verdict | Dismissal moots the appeal because there is no pending prosecution | Not moot — appellate court may reverse the new‑trial order and reinstate the verdict |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial as contrary to the weight of the evidence | The totality of circumstantial and forensic evidence supported the jury’s verdict (GSR on Fischer, bloody fingerprint on trigger, bloodspatter, inconsistent statements, washing hands) | Trial court correctly weighed evidence and found suicide more likely (expert bloodspatter testimony, lack of defendant DNA on gun, alternative explanations) | Abuse of discretion — trial court made unsupported factual findings and failed to account for significant inculpatory evidence; verdict reinstated |
| Proper standard and scope of review when a trial court grants a new trial based on weight of the evidence | N/A (framing of appellate review) | N/A | Grant reviewed for abuse of discretion; trial court has wide deference but must not ignore evidence or make unsupported factual findings |
| Probative value of forensic evidence (DNA, fingerprints, GSR, bloodspatter) | Forensic evidence (bloody print, GSR on Fischer, blood on gun consistent with manipulation) supported homicide theory | Forensic ambiguities and expert testimony could support suicide; absence of Fischer DNA on gun supports non‑shooting | Court found trial court mischaracterized or ignored record on DNA, bloody print, GSR, and bloodspatter; reasonable inferences supported jury verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614 (App. 2012) (mootness standard for appeals)
- State v. Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109 (1964) (State’s appellate rights from post‑verdict rulings)
- State v. Moya, 129 Ariz. 64 (1981) (reinstatement of verdict after reversal of new‑trial grant)
- United States v. Villamonte‑Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 (1983) (reversal can reinstate convictions despite government dismissal)
- State v. Million, 120 Ariz. 10 (1978) (State may voluntarily dismiss to pursue appeal)
- State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (2011) (effect of vacated verdicts and reinstatement upon reversal)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (distinction between sufficiency review and weight‑of‑the‑evidence review)