Samuel A. Thumma

Meet the Judge

Division:
Division 1
Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:
100%
Bio:
View Candidate Bio
Survey Response from Judge:
Judge declined to respond to the Center for Arizona Policy survey.

Judicial Decisions

FRANKLIN v. CLEMETT et al.
Case Date: 10/25/2016Case Number: 1 CA-CV 15-0194Question Presented: (1) Whether Arizona law allowing the affirmative defense of intoxicating liquor violates the contributory negligence and anti-abrogation provisions of the Arizona Constitution. (2) Whether the term “under the influence” as used in the affirmative defense of intoxicating liquor is unconstitutionally vague.Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional and not unconstitutionally vague.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
STATE v. LYNAM
Case Date: 09/15/2016Case Number: 1 CA-CR 15-0679Question Presented: Whether requiring a sentence of at least 10 years for the crime of sexual exploitation of a minor by the possession of child pornography, for each charged image of which the defendant is convicted, to be served consecutively is constitutional. Decision: The requirements are constitutional under the U.S. Constitution.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
STATE v. OKKEN
Case Date: 12/08/2015Case Number: 1 CA-CR 15-0196Question Presented: Whether Arizona’s “implied consent” statute, which establishes that when an Arizona licensed driver refuses to consent to a blood draw for testing of intoxication, the driver may be penalized, is unconstitutional under either the U.S. Supreme Court precedents or the doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions."Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.
STATE v. BURKE
Case Date: 10/08/2015Case Number: 1 CA-CR 14-0438Question Presented: Whether Arizona law providing that “[a] person shall not willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic,” is unconstitutionally vague on its face.Decision: The law is not unconstitutionally vague on its face.Judge Position: Joined in the 3/0 decision.