State of Arizona v. David J. Waller
235 Ariz. 479
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In October 2011 defendant David Waller confronted neighbor J.C. about loud music, struck him, and pressed a handgun into J.C.’s abdomen; J.C. turned the music off and called 9‑1‑1. Waller was later arrested, tried by jury, convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to a mitigated five‑year prison term.
- Deputies visited Waller at his home the next day; Waller spoke with them at his front door for ~7 minutes, admitted displaying a handgun, then received Miranda warnings and was interviewed in a patrol car.
- Prior to trial J.C. identified Waller from photographs shown to him the day after the incident; the defense challenged the pretrial identification as unduly suggestive.
- Defense sought to impeach J.C. with three prior felony convictions; the court allowed only a sanitized reference to a 2003 conviction and excluded older convictions as stale under Rule 609(b).
- During trial the court interrupted defense counsel’s opening twice, scheduled an OSC for counsel’s conduct (held outside the jury), and declined defense requests for a special verdict form/unanimity instruction on which subsection of assault supported conviction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Waller's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of pre‑Miranda statements (custody/Miranda) | Officers asked neutral investigatory questions at Waller’s home; not custodial so pre‑Miranda statements admissible | Pre‑Miranda statements were elicited during custodial interrogation and Seibert requires suppression of pre/post Miranda statements elicited in a two‑step interrogation | No custody: interview at doorway, brief, no restraints. Court did not err to admit pre‑ and post‑Miranda statements (Seibert not reached) |
| In‑court identification (taint from photo ID) | J.C. had close proximity, clear opportunity to see Waller and made a prompt, certain photo ID — reliable | Photo show‑up was unduly suggestive and tainted the in‑court ID | Identification reliable under Biggers factors; even if error, admission harmless because Waller admitted presence and showing the gun |
| Motion for new trial — court conduct & jury unanimity | Court’s interventions were proper management; indictment not duplicitous; evidence supported a single, non‑prejudicial theory of assault | Court’s interruptions, OSC scheduling, and refusal to require unanimity or special verdict denied fair trial | Denial of new trial not an abuse: interruptions harmless, but court erred in not requiring unanimity on underlying assault subsections — error was not prejudicial given the evidence |
| Preclusion of nature of victim’s prior convictions (impeachment) | Court balanced recency and prejudice, allowed sanitized 2003 conviction; Rule 609 applied | Restricting the nature of the prior conviction deprived Waller of meaningful impeachment | No fundamental error: defendant (through counsel) accepted sanitized impeachment and court considered the Rule 609 issues despite lack of explicit findings |
| Motion for change of judge | No showing of prejudice or denial of essential right; motion not timely or sufficiently argued | Denial of change of judge and counsel’s inability to argue prejudiced defense and impaired cross‑examination | Not fundamental error: appellant failed to show prejudice or that the denial deprived him of a fair trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings protect Fifth Amendment right during custodial interrogation)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (two‑stage interrogation may render post‑Miranda warnings ineffective)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (factors for assessing reliability of identification)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (totality of circumstances governs admissibility of identification)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1994) (custody is judged by objective circumstances)
- Howes v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181 (U.S. 2012) (custody defined by objective restraints associated with formal arrest)
- State v. Robles, 213 Ariz. 268 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for viewing facts on appeal)
- State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380 (Ariz. 1969) (procedures for challenging pretrial identifications)