Arizona v. Grannis
Arizona Supreme Court
900 P.2d 1 (1995)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
David Wayne Grannis (defendant) and Daniel Ethan Webster (defendant) were hitchhiking when Richard picked them up and offered for them to spend the night at his house. After a report of screaming coming from Richard’s house the next morning, police responded and found Richard’s body in the hallway with 13 sharp-force injuries and numerous blunt-force injuries. Grannis and Webster were jointly tried in Pima County Superior Court. Webster did not testify. Grannis testified that the three men talked on Richard’s patio for two hours, and then Webster went to bed. Richard became sexually aggressive and grabbed Grannis’s wrist to push him into the bedroom. Grannis screamed, waking Webster, who came into the room and punched Richard in the face. Grannis broke free of Richard, and he began to run away, intending to leave the house while Webster and Richard struggled with each other on the floor. Grannis went to get their belongings from Richard’s car. Several minutes later Webster ran out of the house yelling, “Let’s get out of here.” Grannis thought that Richard was chasing them, and they drove away. Webster claimed self-defense. Grannis alleged that he was not in the house when Richard was murdered and therefore couldn’t be guilty of murder. The jury found both Grannis and Webster guilty of premeditated first-degree murder, two counts of theft, and trafficking in stolen property. Their convictions and death sentence were automatically appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Corcoran, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.