515 P.3d 142
Ariz.2022Background
- March 15, 2020: K.K. was shot outside Eden Adult Cabaret and survived; police recovered .45 and 9mm casings and two 9mm handguns sold by Willis; forensic testing tied one gun’s barrel/slide to casings at the scene.
- Phone/video evidence placed Portillo and others at the scene; Terrazas’ sister messaged Willis about a fight; Willis advised deleting messages and suggested altering a car.
- Portillo’s girlfriend told police Portillo said the victim tried to grab Portillo’s gun and that Portillo “shot the male and then . . . shot the ground.” The State presented parts of her account to the grand jury but omitted the grabbing statement and did not identify the witness.
- Grand jury indicted Willis on multiple counts (attempted second‑degree murder, aggravated assault, unlawful discharge). Willis filed a Rule 12.9 motion seeking remand to the grand jury, arguing the State withheld clearly exculpatory evidence; the trial court denied relief and the court of appeals declined special action; this Court granted review.
- The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the denial of the 12.9 motion and remanded for redetermination of probable cause, holding the State failed to present clearly exculpatory evidence relevant to a justification defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Arizona Constitution guarantees a defendant a due‑process right to a fair and impartial presentation to the grand jury and imposes a prosecutor duty to present clearly exculpatory evidence even absent a request | Willis: Article 2, § 4 requires fair/impartial presentation and the prosecutor must present clearly exculpatory evidence without a specific request | State: Williams precludes a constitutional due‑process duty; no state constitutional requirement | Held: Arizona Constitution (art. 2, § 4) secures that right and the Court has supervisory authority to require fair, impartial presentations; prosecutors must present clearly exculpatory evidence. |
| What standard defines “clearly exculpatory evidence” (would vs. might deter grand jury) | Willis: adopt the looser “might deter” standard to ease defendant’s burden | State: reject “might”; urged alternative standards (e.g., Hogan) | Held: Adopts Mauro’s formulation—evidence is clearly exculpatory if it is of such weight that it would deter a grand jury from finding probable cause. |
| Whether evidence relevant to a justification defense qualifies as clearly exculpatory | Willis: Portillo’s girlfriend’s statements (victim tried to grab Portillo’s gun; Portillo shot then shot ground) are relevant to justification and thus clearly exculpatory | State: disputed reliability and admissibility; argued no duty to present such evidence | Held: Evidence relevant to justification defenses is clearly exculpatory; the girlfriend’s statements were relevant and should have been presented. |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Willis’s Rule 12.9 motion | Willis: denial was error because the State withheld clearly exculpatory justification evidence and hindered grand jury inquiry | State: contended it complied and no constitutional violation occurred | Held: Trial court erred; failure to present the statements deprived Willis of a substantial procedural right—vacated and remanded for redetermination of probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Superior Court (Mauro), 139 Ariz. 422 (1984) (defines prosecutor duty and originally frames “clearly exculpatory” standard)
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (federal decision limiting judicial supervisory power over federal grand juries; distinguished)
- Herrell v. Sargeant, 189 Ariz. 627 (1997) (applies Mauro; remand where justification evidence not presented)
- Trebus v. Davis, 189 Ariz. 621 (1997) (discusses prosecutor duties and defendant requests; cited for procedural points)
- Crimmins v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 39 (1983) (recognizes due‑process fair/impartial presentation requirement for grand juries)
- Maretick v. Jarrett, 204 Ariz. 194 (2003) (standard of review and that failure to present evidence can be a substantial procedural deprivation)
- Cespedes v. Lee, 243 Ariz. 46 (2017) (prosecutor duty to instruct grand jury on relevant justification defenses)
- State v. Hogan, 676 A.2d 533 (N.J. 1996) (New Jersey case proposing a narrower duty to present evidence that squarely refutes elements; considered and declined)