State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong
650 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 19
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- An undercover Tucson police operation targeted Armstrong, Cuttler, Tucker, and Diaz for a planned home invasion and drug deal involving cocaine.
- Three defendants (Armstrong, Cuttler, Tucker) were tried jointly on two counts after Diaz was found incompetent.
- On day three the court closed the courtroom to the public (press allowed) to prevent perceived intimidation; defendants objected.
- Jury found Cuttler and Tucker guilty on both counts; Armstrong was convicted only on the body armor count; conspiracy count resulted in a mistrial for Armstrong.
- Appellants appealed alleging denial of a public trial; Armstrong also challenged sufficiency of evidence and severance rulings; the court vacated convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court ultimately held that the courtroom closure violated the public-trial guarantee and constitutes structural error; remand for retrial is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the partial courtroom closure violated the public-trial guarantee | Armstrong et al. argue closure denied public trial rights | State contends Waller test not fully applicable | Yes; closure violated Waller test and public-trial right, requiring vacatur and retrial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Armstrong’s body-armor conviction | State emphasizes conspiracy participation and vest-wearing | Armstrong contends no nexus or overt act tying vest to conspiracy | Sufficient evidence supported conviction; nexus found between wearing vest and conspiracy participation |
| Denial of Armstrong’s motions to sever | Armstrong argues severance required to avoid prejudice | Joinder permissible given common plan; jury instructions preserved separate consideration | No abuse of discretion; severance denied for purposes of this appeal (though convictions vacated for public-trial issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (four-part test for courtroom closure; applicable to partial closures; must be narrowly tailored)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) (public-trial right applies to states; Sixth Amendment applicability)
- Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (open proceedings; closures must be justified; conditions for remedy)
- Press-Enter. II, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (extended openness principles and alternative measures to closures)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) (public access to trials; closures subject to strict scrutiny)
- Ortiz v. State, 981 P.2d 1127 (Haw. 1999) (applies Waller to partial closures; considerations of witnesses’ safety and transparency)
- Mahkuk v. Minnesota, 736 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2007) (limits on closure; requires specific findings to support closure)
- Penn v. Commonwealth, 562 A.2d 833 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (adequate findings and tailoring of closure; preservation of rights)
- Petrak, 198 Ariz. 260 (2000) (nexus requirement and interpretation of weapons statutes; relevance to body-armor statute)