Free Additional Attachments to Main Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 19
Case 2:OO—cv-O1118—NVW Document 110 Filed O3/28/2007 Page1 014

H I . ___ _ g., I,. , F I L E ’I ·· Iyj
I It ` " Zo fi 1* > ,
. **‘*T“71·:::r———-"
3 · VI\?.l‘!'.·..-...:I;I.:. Clerk
' ' . 7 ·‘
. , — Is.=~.a rh`-XI if Lziiljl
I . I
H II IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
QI IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BLARICOPA
I I
3 STATE OF ARIZONA, I
I No. CR—l237ll
I 4 Plaintiff, I
)
' 5 vs. I IIiF.MORA.NDUM OF mw
, ) RE: DURESS DEFENSE
, 5 I STEVEN CRAIG JAMES , ) I
I I (Assigned to the Hon. James I
7 Defendant. I Moeller) I

8 I I
I I
9I A.R.S. §§l3-404 and l3-·405 recognize the legitimate I
19I use of physical force and deadly physical force in self·defense. I
I I
. . . . - I
UI A.R.S. §§l3-409 and l3—4iO recognize the use or I
I
I
]_gI physical force and deadly physical force in law enforcement.
13I A.R.S. §l3—4ll recognizes the use of physical force
, I
III and deadly physical force in crime prevention. I
I I
15I These statutes must be read, together with A.R.S.
I I
jI5j §l3—4l2, defining the duress defense, in order to reach a logicalI
I I
17I result with regard to STEVEN CRAIG JAMES‘ lack of culpable
13I mental state with regard to the crimes of Kidnapping, Aggravated I
I - .
lg; Robbezqv, Thert and Murder.
2gI . The evidence in the case at bar established that
g]_I STEVEN CRAIG JAMES did not act of his own volition with respect
2gI to Kidnapping, Aggravated RODDQIY or Murder in the First Degree.
I
23I He did physically partake in the driving of the automobile to
I
24I the scene of the killing of Juan Maya. However, he only did so
25I under threats of immediate deadly physical force upon his perse:.
26I His volition was replaced with the volition of Lawrence Libberton
DN. EDWARDS.
VGVAK ac. I I
IRNEYSATLAIM
·ROOSEVELTST. I @ I
(ARIZONA 85007 ‘ I
'ELEPHONE I
::4-im · I
·v-s:I¤ I ` 7 P8 920f4 ·
········ I Case 2:OO—cv-01118-NVW Document 110 FIIed O3/28/200 Q I

. . . I
a • ;(‘ . -
_ • · J
” I
I I I
I
' I
I
I 1I and Martin David Norton.
QI Construing the duress defense as set forth in A.R.S.
31 §l3-4l2(C), making that defense unavailable for offenses involv-
4I ing homicide or serious physical injury, necessarily obtains
5I absurd results. For example, under the State's theory of the
GI case and under the duress statute, an airline pilot in a hijacking
I
7* situation who, with a cun to his head, flies a plane to Mexico,
I 4 •.
3I being told that he will be killed unless he complies with the
I . - , . . . . , . . . .
QI demands OI the hijackers, and that the nijackers intend to kill
I
19I his passengers and rob them, would be guilty of Murder in the I
llI First Degree, Kidnapping and Aggravated Robbery upon the ccmple- I
I I
I . . . - I
9* tion of those offenses bv the hi ackers. This t oe or construc- I
.. I - . I
13I tion is patently not what the legislature intended. It subjects I
I ·
I
14I every citizen to the possibility of becoming an unwilling parti- I
I I
15Icipant in a crime of violence without forming any mental intent I
I
15I to participate. The construction of this statute proffered by I
17Ithe State would convert the crimes of Murder, Robbery and Kid- I
I
I . - . . . · ., -,. I
Ilipplhq ZIOIT1 mala 1.11 SE CIILITIES to mal?. pIO£'1lbl’;& OIZSUSES. I
I
{QI The defense therefore respectfully requests this I
I ‘
I .
ggIHonorable Court, together with counsel, to formulate an appro- I
I
I
g1Ipriate instruction to the jury explaining that wnen a person's I
I
ggIwill is overborneby threats of im ediate deadly physical force,
I . - . .
gggthe actions or the person, whose will is overborne, are not to
24Ibe attributed to that person but rather to the person or persons
g5Iresponsible for the threats. The defense, therefore, offers the
I
I . . .
g5*following instruction:
DN. EDWARDS. I
~IOV K P.C. .. ,.
¤RHE¢S ATLAV 2
.ROOSEVELTS'T.
LARIZOHA ISOO7 '
‘SL:I·I~I0u£ I
:s··zm · I
::1-AZI0 I _
, , L_ Case 2:OO—cv-O1118—NVW Document 110 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 3 014

I Y i ~ A
. I ;,·‘f ’ I
I `~_____ { J
. I .
j
I .
I ` I
5 2
I I
II There has been evidence that STEVEN CRAIG JAMES was I
1
ZI threatened with immediate deadly physical force unless he I
1
BI cooperated with Lawrence Libberton and Martin David Norton in ’
4I transporting Juan Maya to a mineshaft where Juan Maya was ulti— I
1
5I mately killed. If you, as jurors, believe that ST- EN CRAIG I
, 1
GI JAMES cooperated as a direct result of those threats, then his I
7I actions should not be attributed to him and he should not be I
1
SI held criminally responsible for his actions.
I
I
I 9 I
I
I .. · -
10; RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED tnis day or ,
11I l982. I
I
12] ALSTON, EDWARDS & NOVAK, P.C. I
I
I
1 I
14 I By I
g Terrv H. Pil-inger I
15Q l0l8 West Roosevelt Street ‘
I Phoenix, AZ 85007
15; Attorneys for Defendant I
i 1
17I COPY of the foregoing I
I was delivered this I
18; day of , I
I 1982, e""""""""""'¤: I
19 I
I Hon. James Moeller ` I
20? Judge of the Superior Court I
Q llth Floor, Central Court Building
21; 20l west Jefferson
I Phoenix, AZ 85003
00; .
I Myrna Parker
23; Deputy County Attorney ·
5 lOl W. Jefferson, 4th Floor
24I Phoenix, AZ 85003
I
951 ‘
· 1
‘ I
261
xLsT0g.abwAa¤s.I —-———--——————---—-————-—-—- I
:2 N V.-xK P.C.
mronwavs T1. · A I
:018 w. ROOSE:lEL`I::T. I I
1¤z¤¤x.1n¤z¤~A sscov; I
T‘a1.1·:1=uo~E g — I
2.54-2177 I I
csv-azxo 2 -3- I
- ase 2:00-cv-01118-NVW Document 110 Fnled O3/28/2007 Page 4 of 4 '

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 110

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 110

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 110

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 110

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 4