482 P.3d 1038
Ariz.2021Background
- In Dec. 2016 brothers Easton and Claudius Murray went to O.C.’s apartment; a scuffle ensued and Claudius shot O.C. in the leg. Police later found a large bale of marijuana in O.C.’s apartment; O.C. testified that the drugs belonged to the Murrays.
- The State charged both brothers with aggravated assault; O.C. (a Jamaican Patois speaker) was the primary witness. Defendants did not testify and attacked O.C.’s credibility (immigration deal/immunity, inconsistent statements).
- At trial the prosecutor, during rebuttal, told jurors that if they thought the defendants “might be guilty,” that belief showed they had been “persuaded by the evidence . . . beyond a reasonable doubt.” Defense counsel did not object; the court gave a correct written reasonable-doubt instruction and told jurors that lawyers’ arguments are not evidence but may help explain the law.
- The jury convicted both brothers and they appealed. The court of appeals affirmed; this Court granted review and consolidated the appeals to decide whether a single, unobjected-to misstatement of the reasonable-doubt standard by the prosecutor is fundamental, prejudicial error.
- The Arizona Supreme Court held the prosecutor’s remark (equating “might be guilty” with proof beyond a reasonable doubt) was error, was fundamental (it went to the foundation of the case and deprived an essential right), was prejudicial under Escalante, and was not cured by jury instructions; convictions reversed and cases remanded for new trials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single, unobjected-to prosecutorial misstatement that equates “might be guilty” with proof beyond a reasonable doubt constitutes fundamental, prejudicial error requiring a new trial | The prosecutor’s brief rebuttal comment did not meet the high bar for fundamental error; the correct jury instruction and the presumption that jurors follow instructions cured any prejudice | The statement materially diluted the reasonable-doubt standard, attacked the core of the defense (credibility challenge), and, uncorrected, could have led a reasonable jury to convict under a lower standard | Court: The remark was prosecutorial error; it satisfied Escalante prongs 1 and 2 (foundation and deprivation of an essential right), was prejudicial under Escalante, and was not cured by instructions; reverse and remand for new trials |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 (framework for reviewing unobjected-to fundamental error)
- State v. Portillo, 182 Ariz. 592 (defines reasonable doubt as proof that leaves jurors "firmly convinced")
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (instructional defects that permit a lower-than-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard violate the Sixth Amendment)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (government must prove criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 (prosecutorial-misconduct review; prejudice inquiry)
- State v. Vargas, 249 Ariz. 186 (discussion of prosecutorial-misconduct review and cumulative error)
- United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (reaffirming that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required)