State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano, 410 P.3d 433

Apolinar Altamirano was indicted for first-degree murder and the State filed a notice seeking the death penalty.
Under A.R.S. § 13-753(B), the court must order a pretrial prescreening psychological IQ evaluation in capital cases unless the defendant objects; an objection waives the right to a pretrial determination.
The trial court initially ordered prescreening; Altamirano objected (while stating he reserved the right to raise the issue later).
More than two years later, four months before trial, Altamirano moved to withdraw his objection and requested the statutorily mandated pretrial ID evaluation.
The trial court granted the withdrawal and ordered the evaluation; the State filed a special action and sought review in the Arizona Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, addressing whether a defendant can reinstate a § 13-753(B) pretrial evaluation right by withdrawing a prior objection and what authority a court has to order post-waiver evaluations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant may withdraw an earlier objection and thereby reinstate the statutory right to a pretrial ID evaluation under § 13-753(B)	Altamirano: withdrawal of objection restores the statutory right to a pretrial evaluation	State: waiver by objection is final and cannot be undone to obtain a pretrial evaluation	Court: waiver is final; defendant may not reinstate the pretrial-evaluation right by withdrawing the objection
Whether a court may nevertheless order a pretrial ID evaluation after a defendant has waived the right	Altamirano: court should allow evaluation if requested later	State: court should not permit a post-waiver pretrial evaluation as it undermines statute	Court: court retains discretionary authority to order an evaluation post-waiver, but only if defendant requests or consents and court considers prejudice to State/victims (e.g., trial delays)
Scope of the waiver in § 13-753(B)	Altamirano: waiver should not prevent later ID determination	State: waiver limited to pretrial evaluation only	Court: waiver only bars pretrial determination; defendant can still offer ID evidence at penalty phase
Relevant limits and considerations on ordering post-waiver evaluations	Altamirano: not highly constrained	State: ordering post-waiver risks unfairness to State/victims	Court: court must weigh defendant consent/request against prejudice to State/victims (including speedy-trial and continuance concerns)

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment forbids execution of person with intellectual disability)
Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (States must adhere to medical community standards in defining intellectual disability)
Bobby v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825 (Atkins did not supply definitive procedural rules for ID determinations)
Escalante-Orozco v. State, 241 Ariz. 254 (Arizona case discussing § 13-753 and penalty-phase evidence of ID)
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 212 Ariz. 255 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Pitts v. State, 178 Ariz. 405 (courts must give meaning to every statutory word)