State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez, 228 Ariz. 579

Alvarez burglarized the victim’s home, leaving DNA evidence on a water bottle from the scene.
DNA evidence connected Alvarez to the burglary and he was convicted of burglary but acquitted of theft by control.
The landscape contractor R. with a prior criminal record was proposed as third-party culpability; evidence was excluded.
Alvarez argued the exclusion of R.’s evidence and related investigations undermined his defense and warranted a mistrial or new trial.
The court sentenced Alvarez to five years’ probation concurrent with another case; restitution was imposed for economic losses.
The majority held the third-party culpability evidence was properly excluded and that restitution and conviction were supported.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of third-party culpability evidence	Alvarez: evidence shows faulty investigation by implicating R.	State: evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial.	No abuse; evidence inadmissible; harmless error.
Denial of mistrial/new trial based on exclusion	Alvarez: defense strategy compromised; mistrial warranted.	Court acted within discretion; alternative defense unnecessary.	No abuse of discretion; mistrial/new trial denied.
Restitution after split verdict	Alvarez: restitution improper for theft acquitted; emotional loss not supported.	Restitution supported by proven economic losses causally tied to burglary.	Restitution affirmed; not fundamentally erroneous.

State v. Gibson, 202 Ariz. 321 (Ariz. 2002) (rules on relevance of third-party culpability evidence)
State v. Machado, 226 Ariz. 281 (Ariz. 2011) (limits on third-party culpability evidence; threshold relevance)
State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237 (Ariz. 1988) (danger of prejudice vs probative value; foundational standard)
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (Ariz. 1993) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. West, 176 Ariz. 432 (Ariz. 1993) (pretrial objections; discretion to hear untimely motions)