Louis E Cespedes v. Hon. lee/state, CR-16-0384-PR

Background

Louis E. Cespedes was indicted by a grand jury on two counts of child abuse for striking his son with a belt; the prosecutor presented Cespedes’ statement that he had used corporal punishment previously.
During grand-jury empanelment, the prosecutor instructed jurors about justification defenses, referencing A.R.S. § 13-403(1) (parental use of reasonable force to maintain discipline) and A.R.S. § 13-205(A) (burden of proof at trial).
The prosecutor said justification defenses are no longer affirmative defenses at trial (the State must disprove them beyond a reasonable doubt) and told jurors they “can” and “will have to decide” whether force was reasonable under the circumstances; he also stated at one point they were “not going to be making” those decisions, creating alleged ambiguity.
Cespedes moved to dismiss and to remand for a new probable-cause determination; the superior court denied relief, the court of appeals declined special action jurisdiction, and the Arizona Supreme Court granted review.
The central legal question was whether the prosecutor’s grand-jury instruction misstated the law on justification and thereby deprived Cespedes of a substantial procedural right requiring remand.

Issues

Issue	Cespedes' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor misinstructed grand jury on justification such that defendant was denied a substantial procedural right	Prosecutor told jurors they were not to consider justification or implied consideration was permissive, so grand jury may have ignored a mandatory inquiry	Instruction, read as a whole, correctly explained justification and burden differences between grand and trial juries; jurors were told to decide reasonableness when relevant	Majority: No error — instruction, read as a whole, properly informed jurors they must consider justification when relevant; remand denied
Proper standard of "reasonableness" under § 13-403(1)	Prosecutor failed to explain any subjective component or a culturally specific standard; argued for a subjective or hybrid standard	Law requires an objective standard; prosecutor correctly instructed jurors to apply an objective "reasonable under the circumstances" test	Court: Objective standard is correct; prosecutor’s instruction was consistent with law
Whether grand jury could ignore justification when assessing child-abuse under § 13-3623(B)	Prosecutor’s instruction on child abuse suggested relationship to child doesn’t matter and could have discouraged consideration of parental-justification defense	Prosecutor accurately explained § 13-3623(B) and did not prohibit consideration of justification	Court: No misstatement; jurors were not told they could not consider justification
Whether any instructional error was prejudicial (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)	Ambiguity likely affected grand jury’s close nine-to-five indictment vote; error not harmless — remand required	Any ambiguity was not prejudicial because relevant law and reasonableness standard were properly conveyed overall	Majority: Error not shown; affirmed. Dissent: Could not conclude harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and would remand

Key Cases Cited

Trebus v. Davis, 189 Ariz. 621 (prosecutor must instruct grand jury on applicable law)
Crimmins v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 39 (grand jury instruction duty and role in avoiding needless prosecution)
Korzep v. Superior Court, 172 Ariz. 534 (prosecutor must instruct grand jury on relevant justification defenses)
Francis v. Sanders, 222 Ariz. 423 (importance of instructing grand jury on relevant defenses)
State v. Tuzon, 118 Ariz. 205 (reasonableness in self-defense measured by objective standard)
State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 (justification under § 13-404 uses an objective standard)
Maretick v. Jarrett, 204 Ariz. 194 (standard for reviewing grand jury proceedings and harmless-error analysis)
State ex rel. Thomas v. Granville, 211 Ariz. 468 (jury instructions reviewed as a whole)
McKaney v. Foreman, 209 Ariz. 268 (grand jury’s role as check on prosecutorial power)
United States v. Serubo, 604 F.2d 807 (harms from an indictment even if later dismissed)