In re Marriage of Reeder

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Eddington

    226 Ariz. 72 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that defendant had failed to show prejudice on fundamental error review from similar instruction to consider second-degree murder before considering a heat-of-passion manslaughter charge

    We review the applicability of a statutory provision de novo and are not bound by the trial court's conclusions of law. See Reeder v. Johnson, 225 Ariz. 312, ¶ 6, 238 P.3d 123, 125 (App. 2010) (appellate court not bound by trial court's legal conclusions or conclusions on mixed questions of law and fact); State v. Gonzalez, 216 Ariz. 11, ¶ 2, 162 P.3d 650, 651 (App. 2007) (questions of statutory application reviewed de novo); see also Lopez v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 177 Ariz. 371, 373-75, 868 P.2d 954, 956-58 (1993) (concluding venirepersons insured by insurer which was a party to the case had interest in case necessitating disqualification under § 21-211(2) notwithstanding trial court's finding they could be "fair and impartial"). ¶ 8 We hold that when a peace officer is currently employed by the same agency, office, or department that conducted the investigation in a criminal case, that officer has, at minimum, an indirect interest in the case and must therefore be stricken for cause from a venire panel under § 21-211(2).

  2. Prince v. Prince

    No. 1 CA-CV 19-0539 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2020)

    ¶8 Wife argues the mediator could not properly be appointed as a judge pro tem and Wife never signed or agreed to the decree's terms. In support of these arguments Wife cites to Reeder v. Johnson, 225 Ariz. 312 (App. 2010). Wife's reliance on Reeder is misplaced for two reasons.