State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez
233 Ariz. 38
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- In June 2009 Angel Perez, wearing a black T‑shirt and armed, demanded marijuana, money, and truck keys from two men on a patio; one victim (L.F.) resisted and Perez shot him; L.F. later died from the wound.
- Perez was tried by jury and convicted of felony murder and two counts of attempted armed robbery; sentenced to concurrent life (no release for 25 years) and a consecutive 7.5‑year term.
- Perez appealed, raising claims about an erroneous felony‑murder instruction, prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary rulings (polygraph, jail phone calls, cross‑examination limitations), and denial of his suppression motion for statements.
- The trial court had added a sentence to the felony‑murder instruction that Arizona law (Martinez) disapproves: that the killing need only be "part of the same series of events."
- The court excluded Perez’s polygraph results as categorically inadmissible under Arizona precedent and declined a Daubert hearing; the court also denied suppression of statements as voluntary.
- Appellate court affirmed convictions and sentences but vacated a criminal restitution order (CRO) included in the minute entry as unauthorized by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Perez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Felony‑murder instruction | Instruction error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given evidence the shooting occurred during the robbery | The added language improperly expanded felony‑murder and requires reversal | Harmless error; conviction upheld because shooting occurred in furtherance of robbery and defendant denied committing it, so extra language did not affect verdict |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | No misconduct; prosecution complied with court orders and did not vouch improperly | Prosecutor failed to properly redact a recording, had a conflict with witness, vouched, and missed filing obligations | Claims forfeited or unproven; no misconduct found; objections waived where not raised or unsupported; remaining conduct did not deny due process |
| Polygraph admissibility / Daubert hearing | Polygraph inadmissible under Arizona precedent; no Daubert hearing required | Polygraph results were favorable and admissible; a Daubert analysis should have been held | Affirmed exclusion: Arizona treats polygraph results as per se inadmissible (Hoskins/Ikirt); no Daubert hearing required absent showing of changed circumstances |
| Cross‑examination limits (witness R.F.) | N/A | Court improperly limited cross‑examination about prosecutor–witness meeting that preceded witness’s release | No abuse of discretion; jury had facts to infer motives and further questioning would be cumulative |
| Suppression of statements | N/A | Statements were involuntary due to implied promises/free talk; should have been suppressed | Denial of suppression affirmed: totality of circumstances showed no promises or coercion; Miranda read and defense‑initiated interview |
| Introduction of jail phone calls / hearsay | N/A | Admission of recorded jail calls violated Fourth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments and should have been suppressed | Claims forfeited by failure to preserve for appeal; no fundamental error found |
| Criminal restitution order (CRO) | N/A | CRO included in minute entry is unauthorized and must be vacated | CRO vacated as an illegal sentence; convictions and other sentencing affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582 (2009) (harmless‑error standard for jury instructions)
- State v. Martinez, 218 Ariz. 421 (2008) (disapproving language that expands felony‑murder beyond statutory scope)
- State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 (2000) (Arizona precedent treating polygraph results as per se inadmissible)
- State v. Ikirt, 160 Ariz. 113 (1989) (polygraph evidence deemed unreliable and inadmissible)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court as gatekeeper for expert testimony)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (upholding per se exclusion of polygraph evidence is constitutionally permissible)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (forfeiture of appellate review where party failed to object at trial)
- State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 (1992) (felony‑murder: killing that "emanates" from the felony is in furtherance of the offense)