State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca
233 Ariz. 324
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Angelino Buccheri-Bianca, an elderly neighbor, was tried by jury and convicted of five counts of child molestation based on testimony from three child victims who described repeated genital contact and threats to their family if they disclosed. The jury acquitted on counts related to a fourth child.
- The victims occasionally entered defendant’s apartment to pick up food; the children testified about gift-giving, separation by gender, and threats to kill the family if they told.
- Defense raised issues concerning victims’ possible motive to fabricate (via a U‑Visa application), amendment of the indictment to conform to trial testimony, admission of expert testimony about child disclosure dynamics, admissibility of recorded jail statements, and overall sufficiency of the evidence.
- Trial court excluded evidence of victims’ immigration status (U‑Visa application) as irrelevant/collateral, admitted the state’s expert (generalized testimony on child disclosure), permitted amendment of indictment locations to conform to testimony, admitted inculpatory jail statements while allowing some exculpatory excerpts, and denied a Rule 20 judgment of acquittal.
- On appeal, the court affirmed convictions and sentences but vacated the criminal restitution order (CRO) as an unauthorized/illegal sentence under controlling restitution law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of evidence of victim/family immigration status (U‑Visa) | State: immigration evidence was collateral, not relevant, and risked confusing jury | Buccheri-Bianca: U‑Visa application gave victims motive to fabricate; exclusion deprived cross‑examination | Court: exclusion was within discretion; timing and lack of evidence that visa motivated report made evidence irrelevant; no abuse of discretion |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument re: lack of motive to lie | State: argument was a permissible inference from the evidence presented | Buccheri-Bianca: prosecutor took advantage of excluded immigration evidence to mislead jury | Court: no fundamental error; prosecutor argued reasonable inferences from the record |
| Amendment of indictment locations during trial | State: amendment merely conformed counts to testimony and did not change elements | Buccheri-Bianca: amendment prejudiced defense by erasing inconsistency between charging paperwork and testimony | Court: amendment permissible under Rule 13.5(b); location is not an element; no prejudice; evidence sufficient to survive Rule 20 motion |
| Admission of generalized expert testimony on child disclosure | State: expert’s experience‑based testimony aids jury understanding of disclosure/delay | Buccheri-Bianca: testimony unreliable/novel, not scientific, and impermissibly bolstered victims | Court: Rule 702 allows experience‑based generalized testimony; Daubert factors do not bar such testimony here; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Admission of recorded jail statements / rule of completeness | State: inculpatory admission (“I’m guilty”) admissible as party admission; prosecution need not admit whole interview | Buccheri-Bianca: statements reflect confusion; either exclude or admit full interview to provide context | Court: admission of inculpatory statements proper; court allowed multiple exculpatory excerpts; refusal to admit entire conversation did not abuse discretion under Rule 106 |
| Sufficiency of evidence | State: victims’ consistent accounts and corroborating facts support convictions | Buccheri-Bianca: testimony was inconsistent, vague, and physically contradicted by some apartment evidence | Court: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, reasonable jurors could convict; credibility for jury; convictions affirmed |
| Criminal restitution order (CRO) | (not contested by parties on appeal) | CRO reduced fines/fees to a single order while defendant incarcerated | Court: CRO as entered was unauthorized by A.R.S. § 13‑805 and constituted fundamental illegal‑sentence error; CRO vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Bible v. State, 175 Ariz. 549 (establishes viewing facts in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
- McGill v. State, 213 Ariz. 147 (abuse of discretion standard for admissibility rulings)
- Cañez v. State, 202 Ariz. 133 (trial courts’ latitude to limit cross‑examination)
- Abdi v. State, 226 Ariz. 361 (excluding collateral immigration evidence that may confuse jury)
- Henderson v. State, 210 Ariz. 561 (fundamental‑error standard when constitutional arguments not raised below)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (framework adopted in Rule 702 admissibility analysis)
- Lindsey v. State, 149 Ariz. 472 (permitting generalized expert testimony about child‑victim behavior)
- Salazar‑Mercado v. State, 232 Ariz. 256 (experience‑based expert testimony under amended Rule 702)
- Hill v. State, 174 Ariz. 313 (counsel may argue reasonable inferences from evidence)