State of Arizona v. Shawnte Shuree Jones
334 P.3d 191, 695 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4, 235 Ariz. 501 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a general statute requiring concurrent sentences for crimes stemming from a single act conflicts with a more recent, specific statute mandating consecutive sentences for certain dangerous crimes, the more recent and specific statute controls.
Facts:
- Shawnte Jones called 911 to report that her daughter had accidentally fallen and was not breathing.
- Paramedics transported the child to the hospital, where she died a few days later.
- A medical examiner observed seven recent head contusions and determined the cause of death was 'blunt force head trauma.'
- The medical examiner concluded the child's injuries were inconsistent with Jones's claim of an accidental fall and classified the death as a homicide.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Shawnte Jones in state trial court with child abuse and first degree murder.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Jones of reckless child abuse, child abuse, and first degree murder.
- The trial court imposed concurrent sentences for two counts but ordered a consecutive 17-year prison term for the child abuse count involving the infliction of head injuries.
- Jones (Appellant) appealed her sentence to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the sentence, ordering the child abuse term to run concurrently, not consecutively.
- The State (Petitioner) successfully petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review to resolve the conflict between the sentencing statutes.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Arizona statute requiring consecutive sentences for dangerous crimes against children (A.R.S. § 13-705(M)) control over the general statute requiring concurrent sentences for crimes arising from a single act (A.R.S. § 13-116)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brutinel
Yes. The more recent and specific statute, A.R.S. § 13-705(M), which mandates consecutive sentences for dangerous crimes against children, governs over the older, more general statute, A.R.S. § 13-116. The court reasoned that the two statutes are in direct conflict and cannot be harmonized. Applying the canon of statutory construction that the more recent, specific statute controls over an older, general one, the court found § 13-705(M) (enacted 1985) prevails over § 13-116 (roots in 1901). The court explicitly overruled a prior court of appeals decision, State v. Arnoldi, that had held § 13-116 was paramount, finding Arnoldi was based on a misinterpretation of precedent. The court also rejected a double jeopardy challenge, holding that under the Blockburger test, first degree murder and child abuse are separate offenses because each requires proof of a fact the other does not.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant statutory conflict in Arizona's sentencing scheme, establishing a clear hierarchy where specific legislative mandates for punishing heinous crimes override general sentencing principles. By overruling State v. Arnoldi, the court corrected what it viewed as a longstanding error in statutory interpretation and reinforced the legislature's authority to impose stricter penalties for crimes against vulnerable populations. The ruling ensures that defendants convicted of multiple dangerous crimes against a child from a single act will face cumulative punishment, reflecting a strong public policy of enhanced deterrence and retribution for such offenses.
Unlock the full brief for State of Arizona v. Shawnte Shuree Jones