State v. Kinney
225 Ariz. 550
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Kinney was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor after a jury trial.
- The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Kinney on two years of probation.
- Kinney moved to suppress statements made to a police officer at the scene and later to Leikem at the police station; the court suppressed some statements but did not address the station statements.
- Kinney argued the arrest was illegal and the station statement was tainted; the State argued the stop was lawful and the taint was purged.
- On appeal Kinney contested the sufficiency of the evidence if the station statement is excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kinney's station-house statement was admissible | Kinney argues the arrest was illegal and tainted the station statement | State contends any taint was attenuated or preserved error | Taint not purged; suppression error occurred |
| Whether the taint from an illegal detention invalidates obtaining Kinney's prior-conviction admission | Kinney asserts the illegal detention tainted the station questioning | State argues attenuation or records check justified continued detention | Detention extended beyond necessary; taint not purged |
| Whether the evidence of Kinney's prior conviction was sufficient | Kinney contends name and birth date are insufficient without the station statement | State relies on document tying Kinney to the prior conviction plus identification | Independent evidence corroborates identity; sufficient evidence present |
| Whether the conviction is supported by substantial evidence apart from the station statement | Without station statement, evidence may be insufficient | Sufficiency remains under standard review even if some evidence is removed | Substantial evidence supports the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (evidence derived from illegal search/seizure inadmissible)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (taint of illegal detention may render evidence inadmissible)
- Teagle, 217 Ariz. 17 (App. 2007) (reasonableness of duration of investigatory stop; totality of circumstances)
- Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental-error review for improper trial-court rulings)
- United States v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (Miranda not to be exploited by two-step interrogation)
- State v. Ybarra, 156 Ariz. 275 (App. 1987) (records checks and scope of detention in stops)