State v. Chapple

135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State v. Chapple

Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc
135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983)

Play video

Facts

At his trial for first-degree murder, Dolan Chapple (defendant) asserted a single argument in his defense. He argued that he was not the killer because he was in another state at the time of crime. At dispute in the trial was the testimony of Malcolm Scott and Pamela Buck, who testified for the State of Arizona (State) (plaintiff) that Chapple was “Dee,” a person identified by Scott and Buck as present at the scene of the murder. Scott and Buck did not witness the murder, but Buck testified that Dee confessed to the murder, telling her that he had “shot that _____ in the head.” At trial, the State sought to admit into evidence color photos showing the victim’s burned body, face and skull, the gunshot entry wound, and close up images of the charred skull and brain matter where the bullet had lodged. Chapple did not contest the cause of death and offered to stipulate to the cause of death at trial. The court admitted the photos into evidence over Chapple’s objection. Chapple also sought to introduce testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, an expert on eyewitness identification, that Scott and Buck’s identifications were unreliable. Dr. Loftus planned to testify to general factors regarding eyewitness identifications and the variables affecting memory, including the timing of the identification and the effects of stress and lack of confidence on the witness's identification. Dr. Loftus was not planning to give an opinion specifically on the accuracy of Scott and Buck's identifications. The trial court excluded this testimony. Chapple was convicted and appealed his conviction, claiming that the court erroneously admitted the photos of the victim because the photos were gruesome and inflammatory and prejudiced the jury against him. Chapple also claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Loftus's testimony. The case was ultimately appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Feldman, J.)

Dissent (Hays, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership