No Relationship Between Annulment And Drug Prosecution

The Arizona Supreme Court declined to disqualify a prosecutor’s office due to the county attorney’s prior representation in an unrelated matter, reversing the order of the trial court

We consider whether a county attorney’s prior representation of a criminal defendant creates an appearance of impropriety in a current prosecution, warranting disqualification of an entire county attorney’s office, absent a finding that a substantial relationship exists between the two matters. Because the current prosecution for a drug sale offense is not the same nor substantially related to the prior representation in a marriage annulment matter, we hold that there is no appearance of impropriety upon which to disqualify the office.

The rather interesting prior representation

Before 2008, Elaine Henderson (Henderson) married Gary Roberts (Roberts), believing she was divorced from her first husband, Charles Henderson (Charles). While Henderson was in prison for possession of a dangerous drug for sale, she learned that her former sister-in-law sought to have her charged with bigamy because she never finalized her divorce from Charles. Consequently, Henderson’s father retained Bradley Beauchamp (Beauchamp) on her behalf to secure an annulment of her marriage to Charles.

Beauchamp and Henderson never met in person. They only communicated by telephone and mail. Henderson does not remember much about the representation, but she recalls that she may have received, signed, and mailed documents. She never discussed with Beauchamp why she was in prison or the nature of the underlying charges. She does not remember discussing her relationship with Roberts but believes she must have provided information about his location and their marriage. Eventually, Beauchamp obtained a default annulment and his representation of Henderson ended in 2009.

Beauchamp represented the state in a child support enforcement action against Henderson and later

was elected Gila County Attorney and currently leads the Gila County Attorney’s Office (“GCAO”).

She sought to disqualify his office from a drug case brought against her

Obtaining a marriage annulment and prosecuting a drug crime are two very different matters without any factual nexus. The only similarity is that Henderson was married to Roberts at the time she sought an annulment of her previous marriage and was later questioned about Roberts’ affiliation with the AB after her drug arrest. The annulment
representation and the current prosecution thus are not the same or substantially related and the current prosecution is not even remotely akin to switching sides.

Thus 

we vacate the order disqualifying GCAO and reinstate GCAO as the prosecuting agency.

(Mike Frisch)