## Facts

- Investigative reporter Donald Bolles arranged a meeting with John Harvey Adamson at a Phoenix hotel to obtain information for a prospective story.
- Notes referencing the planned meeting were found at Bolles’s office.
- Bolles waited in the hotel lobby, received a call he attributed to Adamson, and then went to his car.
- As Bolles backed out of a parking space, a bomb attached to the vehicle exploded, severely injuring him.
- At the scene, Bolles made statements identifying Adamson as responsible and stating he felt he was dying; he also referenced that he had been investigating a mafia-related group.
- The next day in intensive care, Bolles communicated with police by hand signals, indicating he had gone to the hotel to meet Adamson, received a call from him, and identified Adamson from a photograph.
- Bolles died about 10–11 days after the explosion due to his injuries.
- The State presented additional evidence tying Adamson to the bombing, including proof of payment for the killing, evidence of acquiring bomb-related materials, incriminating post-crime statements, and items seized from Adamson’s apartment pursuant to a search warrant.
- A jury convicted Adamson of first-degree murder, and after an aggravation–mitigation hearing the trial court imposed a death sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the victim’s post-bombing statements and hospital identifications were admissible under hearsay exceptions (including dying declaration and excited utterance) and, if admitted, whether they violated the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
2. Whether notes found at the victim’s office concerning the planned meeting were properly authenticated and admissible.
3. Whether the search warrant for Adamson’s apartment and the resulting seizure of evidence were lawful, and whether suppression was required.
4. Whether any assumed evidentiary error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the remaining evidence of guilt.
5. Whether the death sentence was properly imposed under Arizona’s capital sentencing statute based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction and the death sentence.
- The court held the victim’s statements at the scene and later hospital communications were admissible as dying declarations and/or excited utterances.
- The court concluded admission of those statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they fell within firmly rooted exceptions and bore sufficient reliability.
- The court held the notes were sufficiently authenticated by circumstantial evidence; any foundational shortcomings were not prejudicial.
- The court upheld the search warrant and denied suppression, finding probable cause and proper execution within the warrant’s scope.
- The court applied harmless-error review and determined any arguable evidentiary mistakes did not affect the verdict in light of substantial independent evidence.
- The court found the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating evidence and sustained the death sentence.
- A partial dissent argued the hearsay admissions improperly impaired confrontation rights and amounted to fundamental error.

## Legal Principles

- A homicide victim’s identification of the assailant may be admitted as a dying declaration when made under a belief of impending death and describing the cause or circumstances of the fatal injury.
- Statements made immediately after a startling event may be admitted as excited utterances when made under the stress of the event, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
- Statements admitted under firmly rooted hearsay exceptions may satisfy confrontation requirements when the circumstances provide sufficient reliability.
- Documentary evidence may be authenticated through circumstantial proof sufficient for a factfinder to conclude it is what its proponent claims.
- Denial of a motion to suppress will be upheld where a warrant is supported by probable cause, describes items with adequate particularity, and is executed within its authorized scope.
- Even if evidence is admitted in error, a conviction may stand if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the overall record.
- In capital sentencing, appellate review assesses whether statutory aggravators are supported and whether mitigation is sufficient to warrant leniency.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Adamson’s conviction and death sentence, ruling that the victim’s identifications and related statements were properly admitted under dying-declaration and excited-utterance doctrines without violating confrontation rights, that the challenged documentary and search-warrant evidence was admissible, and that any arguable evidentiary error was harmless given the strength of the proof of guilt and the supported aggravating circumstances.


State v. Adamson, 665 P.2d 972 (Ariz. 1983)