State v. Verive case brief

State v. Verive case brief summary
627 P.2d 721 (Ariz. App. 1981)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Defendant appealed from convictions for attempt to dissuade a witness and conspiracy to dissuade a witness entered in the Superior Court of Maricopa County (Arizona), contending that his motion for a new finding of probable cause was improperly denied, that a witness should not have been permitted to testify under his own name, that prosecution alluded to prior bad acts, and that his conviction violated the proscription against double punishment.

CASE FACTS
Subsequent to his convictions for attempt to dissuade a witness and conspiracy to dissuade a witness, defendant raised several issues on appeal.

DISCUSSION

• The court affirmed the convictions and held that: 
• (1) defendant should have sought relief from the trial court's denial of a motion for a new finding of probable cause prior to trial, and that the court would not review the propriety of withholding evidence from a grand jury by appeal from a conviction; 
• (2) the testimony of an infamous witness was necessary because he provided the only independent corroboration of the conspiracy; and assertions that media coverage effected the jury's view of defendant were speculative; 
• (3) the mention of defendant's mug shot by a prosecution witness was harmless because there was no question of prosecutorial overreaching and the evidence against defendant was overwhelming; and 
• (4) the convictions did not violate defendant's double jeopardy rights because the two offenses were separate and distinct, each requiring proof of an element not required by the other. 
• Conspiracy required an agreement. 
• Attempt required an act beyond mere preparation. 
• And neither was a lesser included offense of the other.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed defendant's convictions for attempt to dissuade a witness and conspiracy to dissuade a witness.

Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law