State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown

── State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM MAURICE BROWN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2023-0247 Filed May 8, 2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County No. S0200CR202100007 The Honorable Jason A. Lindstrom, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED COUNSEL Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General By Alice M. Jones, Deputy Solicitor General/Section Chief of Criminal Appeals, Phoenix Counsel for Appellee Charles Kendall, Cochise County Public Defender By Mary E. Perez, Deputy Public Defender, Bisbee Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. BROWN Opinion of the Court OPINION Judge Sklar authored the opinion of the Court, in which Judge O’Neil concurred and from which Vice Chief Judge Eppich dissented. S K L A R, Judge: ¶1 After being chased by law enforcement, William Brown crashed a truck in Bisbee, killing two passengers and injuring others. Brown was tried for first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and other charges. During jury selection, a prospective juror—an employee of the Sierra Vista Police Department—stated that she worked in the same room as the lead investigator, who worked for a different agency. She was also familiar with two other peace officers involved with the case. The trial court denied Brown’s motion to strike that juror. Brown was then convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of second-degree murder, five counts of endangerment, five counts of aggravated assault, and one count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. ¶2 On appeal, Brown argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to strike the juror for cause. We disagree. We conclude that the juror was not categorically excluded from jury service under State v. Eddington, 228 Ariz. 361 (2011). We also conclude that the court acted within its discretion in concluding that A.R.S. § 21-211 did not otherwise require the juror’s exclusion. In addition, we reject Brown’s argument that the court caused his involuntary absence from trial and improperly admitted profile evidence. ¶3 We agree with Brown, however, that the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at sentencing and erroneously sentenced him for both first- and second-degree murder arising from the same deaths. We thus affirm his convictions on all but the second-degree-murder counts. We also vacate his sentences and remand for resentencing consistent with this decision. BACKGROUND ¶4 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining Brown’s convictions. See State v. Gay, 214 Ariz. 214, ¶ 2 (App. 2007). In January 2021, Brown picked up five people wearing camouflage in his truck at a gas station in Douglas. An off-duty Border Patrol agent saw the 2  STATE v. BROWN Opinion of the Court exchange, called the Border Patrol’s dispatch center, and began following Brown. Two additional units attempted to stop Brown. Border Patrol officers called for assistance, and officers from the Bisbee Police Department also began to pursue Brown. During the pursuit, Brown reached a traffic circle, where he lost control and flipped the truck multiple times. Two passengers died, and several others were injured. ¶5 Brown was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of second-degree murder, five counts of endangerm