## Facts

- Christina Hengsteler, an 18-year-old student working in the Hunts’ home, found the Hunts’ five-year-old adopted daughter “Tina” in a furnace room, crying, with her hands tied behind her back and visible injuries; Tina said her mother hit her with a belt.
- Hengsteler contacted police. Detective Bernal went to the residence without a warrant to investigate reported abuse and to take the child into protective custody if necessary.
- At the door, Mrs. Hunt acknowledged Tina was in the furnace room and invited Bernal inside; he followed her to the furnace room and saw Tina restrained and bruised.
- During the visit Bernal gathered evidence, including his observations, statements by Tina and Mrs. Hunt, a photograph of Tina, and notes of what he saw.
- The Hunts were charged with aggravated assault and battery and multiple child-neglect-related offenses based on the November 9, 1963 incident; Dr. Hunt was also charged as an accessory for earlier alleged incidents.
- The defendants sought suppression of Bernal’s evidence and sought relief based on extensive media publicity; the trial court denied the motions.
- After a joint jury trial, both defendants were convicted on aggravated assault and battery and three neglect-related counts; the trial court imposed sentence on the assault count and one neglect count.

## Issues

1. Whether Bernal’s warrantless entry into the home and the resulting observations, statements, photograph, and notes were inadmissible under constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
2. Whether the trial court’s handling of extensive pretrial publicity and juror exposure deprived defendants of an impartial jury and a fair trial, requiring reversal.
3. Whether cumulative trial errors required a new trial even if key evidence was lawfully obtained.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial for both defendants.
- The court rejected the principal suppression argument, concluding Bernal’s entry and initial observations were reasonable given the reported child abuse and the invitation to enter.
- The court held the challenged evidence (observations, statements taken during the protective response, and the photograph) was not excluded as the product of an unlawful search.
- Despite the evidentiary rulings favoring the State, the court found trial-level errors—viewed in context of extensive prejudicial publicity—required a new trial to ensure fairness.

## Legal Principles

- A warrantless entry may be reasonable when an officer responds to a credible report of ongoing child abuse and enters with consent or to address an immediate need to protect a child.
- Observations made during a lawful protective response, and contemporaneous documentation such as photographs and notes, are generally admissible and not subject to exclusion as fruits of an illegal search.
- A conviction may be reversed where substantial prejudicial publicity and inadequate safeguards for juror impartiality, along with other errors, undermine the right to a fair trial, even if core evidence was lawfully obtained.
- Appellate courts may order a new trial based on cumulative error affecting trial fairness.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the admissibility of evidence obtained when an officer entered a home to investigate and protect an allegedly abused child, but reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial because the proceedings did not sufficiently protect the defendants’ right to an impartial jury in the face of extensive publicity and related trial errors.


State v. Hunt, 2 Ariz. App. 6, 406 P.2d 208 (Ct. App. 1965)