0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
3K visualizzazioni4 pagine
Chantry Defense attempt to keep the State from portraying that Walter Chantry picked the three man ARBCA Investigative Council of 2000 or improperly influenced the selection of the three man Investigative Council.
Titolo originale
P1300CR201600966 - Chantry Defense Motion Regarding Influence of Walter Chantry on selection of 2000 ARBCA Council
Chantry Defense attempt to keep the State from portraying that Walter Chantry picked the three man ARBCA Investigative Council of 2000 or improperly influenced the selection of the three man Investigative Council.
Chantry Defense attempt to keep the State from portraying that Walter Chantry picked the three man ARBCA Investigative Council of 2000 or improperly influenced the selection of the three man Investigative Council.
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
23
24
GRIFFEN & STEVENS LAW FIRM, PLLC
Ryan J. Stevens (#026378)
609 N. Humphreys Street
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Phone: (928) 226-0165
Fax: (928) 752-8111
stevens@flagstaff-lawyer.com
Attorney for Defendant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF YAVAPAI
STATE OF ARIZONA,
Case No. P1300CR201600966
Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL.
v. BRIEF RE: COUNCIL
INVESTIGATION
THOMAS JONATHAN CHANTRY,
Defendant, |
~
Defendant, Thomas Chantry, by and through undersigned counsel, submits this
post-hearing brief, with the permission of the Court, in regard to the information about the
church council investigation the State seeks to introduce during its case-in-chief. At the
hearing on April 19, 2019, this Court ruled that the existence of the council investigation,
the reason for witnesses to write letters (in 2000), and the reason for certain actions by the
witnesses as it relates to the council, are admissible.
There was one additional topic the State seeks to introduce, however, which is the
subject of this brief: the State’s intent to portray the council as having been “picked” by
Walt Chantry (Defendants father) or improperly influenced by Walt Chantry. Defendant
objects on the grounds of relevance and lack of foundation. The State bases this intention10
ul
12
13
14
18
19
20
21
23
24
on the testimony of Rich Howe and Eric Owens as it relates to a letter written to them by
Walt Chantry.
Respectfully, there is no foundation for the inaccurate portrayal of Walt Chantry as.
having “picked” the council, being the “founder” of ARBCA, or influencing the council’s
investigation, Those things are not accurately articulated by the State.' If Eric Owens or
/Rich Howe were affected in some fashion by Walt Chantry’s letter directed to them (not
to the council), that information is likely admissible if relevant and supported by adequate
foundation, However, to stretch that letter directed to Eric Owens and Rich Howe (who
were elders) into an allegation that Walt Chantry orchestrated the selection or operation
of the counci/—which is factually inaccurate—should not be permitted.
In the transcripts from the first trial, it does not appear that Eric Owens testified
about Walt Chantry. On the other hand, Rich Howe did testify as follows:
Q. BY MS. EAZER: Mr. Sears asked you several questions before
the noon hour about Walt Chantry and how he was an influential leader in
ARBCA and so forth. Let me just ask you, sir. Was Walt Chantry very vocal
with both yourself and Eric Owens after the allegations came out? Just yes
or no?
A. Yes.
Q Did he express a great deal of anger towards you and Eric Owens
* For the Courts information, Walt Chantry suggested to Bob Selph that a council be formed, and it was
actually Bob Selph who contacted the elders of MVBC with the idea, and they (Selph and the elders) all
agreed it was a good idea. The elders then requested that Bob Selph, not Walt Chantry, organize the
‘council10
ul
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
about the allegations and the way you were handling them?
A. Yes.
Q To your knowledge, did he express
council when they came down to investigate?
A. That I'm not aware of.
Transcript of Trial, Day 7, page 187, lines 9 to 23 (emphasis added).
There is no foundation for the State to allege or argue to the jury in this re-trial that
Walt Chantry improperly influenced the selection or actions of the council. Itis prejudicial
slant of the truth by the State, without factual merit or legal foundation. It is factually
inaccurate. Walt Chantry’s dissatisfaction with the elders (Eric Owens and Rich Howe) is
distinct from an allegation that the church council was orchestrated by Walt Chantry.
Hypothetically, even if it was true that Walt Chantry had picked the council, that
information does not satisfy Ariz. R. Evid, 403. It is not probative of a material fact at
issue in the re-trial. The purpose of introducing any information about the council is to
explain why certain witnesses acted the way they did, or why they wrote letters when they
did. That purpose is not served by alleging that Walt Chantry picked the council or
influenced the council, or that the council conducted a “cover-up” operation. As this Court
has previously stated, the council is not on trial here—neither is Walt Chantry.
Importantly, “[a]s probative value diminishes, the potential increases that it will be
substantially outweighed by dangers identified in Rule 403.” State v. Hardy, 230 Ariz,
281, 291, 283 P.3d 12, 22 (Ariz. 2012).
u