State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague
240 Ariz. 475
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 31, 2011, Jamonte Olague and codefendants robbed and fatally shot a victim after arranging to buy marijuana; Olague was arrested and later tried for first-degree murder and armed robbery.
- A detective read Miranda warnings and conducted a custodial interview; the trial court denied Olague’s motion to suppress, finding a knowing, voluntary waiver.
- Olague moved to dismiss the murder count alleging selective prosecution tied to race; the trial court denied the motion based on a statutory interpretation ground.
- After conviction, Olague filed two new-trial motions alleging juror misconduct (one juror felt bullied into a guilty vote; another juror allegedly discussed likely punishment/probation). The trial court denied both motions and restricted Olague’s contact with jurors absent court approval.
- Sentenced to concurrent terms, including life with no possibility of release for 25 years; convictions and sentences affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Olague) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Miranda waiver / admissibility of statements | Waiver invalid because Olague only responded to an "order" to tell his side, not voluntary statements | Detective read Miranda, tailored language to defendant, removed handcuffs to reduce coercion; waiver was knowing and voluntary | Court affirmed denial of suppression: waiver valid under totality of circumstances (Miranda advisory given; brief "You cool with that?" not coercive) |
| Motion to dismiss / selective prosecution based on race & applicability of felony-murder drug-quantity threshold | Felony-murder threshold amounts apply only to narcotics offenses (last antecedent rule); thus murder charge dismissal warranted | Legislative history and statute show threshold amounts apply to marijuana, dangerous drug, and narcotics predicates; trial court correctly denied dismissal | Court affirmed: statutory construction requires threshold amounts for listed drug offenses, so dismissal was not required |
| New trial motion — juror "pledged" vote / bullying and intimidation | Juror 8 pled her vote of guilty after being bullied and fearing retaliation; affidavit evidence shows coercion | Juror affidavits were vague, reflected subjective feelings, and juror did not report coercion at in-court polling; such subjective evidence is inadmissible under Rule 24.1(d) | Court affirmed denial: allegations were vague, concerned juror mental processes, and did not show threats or objective misconduct |
| New trial motion — extrinsic evidence re: punishment (juror said defendant would likely get probation) | Comments about likely probation injected inadmissible extrinsic evidence and warrant new trial | Comments amounted to speculation based on trial testimony (immunity witness); no outside evidence was introduced; defendant failed to show extrinsic evidence | Court affirmed denial: no extrinsic evidence shown; juror speculation about punishment insufficient to prove Rule 24.1(c)(3)(i) misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes custodial-warning requirements)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (waiver of Miranda must be voluntary and is evaluated under the totality of circumstances)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (discusses voluntariness and waiver standards in custodial interrogation)
- State v. Naranjo, 234 Ariz. 233 (2014) (totality-of-circumstances approach to Miranda-waiver inquiries)
- State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442 (2003) (burden to show jurors received extrinsic evidence to obtain new trial)
- State v. Paxton, 145 Ariz. 396 (1985) (permitting trial court restriction on post-trial juror contact)