State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421

Background

Mark Goudeau was tried for a series of offenses spanning Aug. 2005–June 2006; he was convicted on 67 counts, including nine first-degree murders, and sentenced to death on each murder.
The State presented DNA (STR and Y-STR) linking Goudeau to several victims, ballistics tying the same .380 firearm to most murders, victim identifications (including a voice lineup), and possession of a murder victim’s ring found hidden in a shoe in his home.
Police executed three search warrants of Goudeau’s home; DNA and ballistics results developed after the first search supported a third warrant that led to finding the ring; trial court denied suppression.
Defense raised multiple pretrial and trial claims: suppression, consumptive DNA testing (defendant’s ability to observe/examine), misjoined counts/severance, ineffective counsel / breakdown of communication, admissibility of other-act evidence and identifications, expert testimony, third-party culpability, and waiver of mitigation.
Goudeau elected to waive further mitigation after limited mitigation testimony; the State rebutted certain mitigation evidence. The trial court found the waiver knowing and voluntary. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed convictions and death sentences on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Goudeau)	Held
Suppression of evidence from third warrant	Warrant supported by new post-search ballistics and DNA linking victims’ blood to items seized, creating fair probability of finding ring/shoes	Warrant lacked new probable-cause info tying Washington murder or ring to Goudeau; third search was improper	Denied. Court: affidavit contained new, probative facts (blood matches and ballistic links); probable cause existed.
Consumptive DNA testing / due process & Confrontation	State: testing (pre/post-indictment) was necessary, extracts retained, procedures documented, court-approved post-indictment testing; cross-examination suffices	Defendant: entitled to observe or participate in consumptive testing; lack of observation denied meaningful opportunity to present defense and confrontation rights	Denied. No bad faith shown; observation not constitutionally required absent bad faith; results admissible; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Joinder / severance; admission of other-act evidence	State: offenses suitably connected by identity, modus operandi, DNA, and ballistics; other-act evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)/(c) to prove identity	Goudeau: prejudicial cumulative joinder; other-act evidence not sufficiently distinctive for identity	Denied. Court found substantial similarities and cross-admissibility; no fundamental error; jurors instructed to consider counts separately.
Right to new counsel / constructive denial of counsel	State: trial court conducted multiple hearings, probed complaints, allowed conferencing; defendant ultimately confirmed desire to proceed with counsel	Goudeau: irreconcilable conflict, lack of communication, court failed adequate inquiry; deprived of meaningful relationship with counsel	Denied. Court’s on-record inquiries and repeated hearings were adequate; no total breakdown shown.
Multiple opening statements (per "chapters")	State: sequential mini-openings help juror comprehension in a long, complex trial	Goudeau: multiple openings improper and prejudicial	Denied. Court has authority under Crim. Proc. Rule 19.1 and inherent powers; procedure reasonable and jurors instructed.
Pretrial and in-court identifications	State: identifications reliable; many victims’ IDs independent of police suggestion; voice lineup properly conducted	Goudeau: identifications tainted by media exposure, suggestive court showups, or unduly suggestive voice exemplars	Denied. Court found insufficient state-caused suggestiveness for several IDs; used Biggers reliability factors; voice exemplar admissible.
Ballistics expert & second-chair testimony	State: Hamilton’s opinion admissible under Frye; standard methods, not new science; second-chair process described generally	Goudeau: Daubert required; testimony asserted another analyst’s agreeing opinion (hearsay) and lacked limiting instructions	Denied. Frye applied; no Frye hearing required; testimony based on examiner’s own analysis; no fundamental error shown.
Admission of autopsy photo (Chap. 7)	State: photo corroborates witness and medical examiner testimony about shooter position and shot trajectory	Goudeau: photo prejudicially graphic and cumulative	Denied. Photo relevant to identity and shooter position; not unduly gruesome; probative value outweighed prejudice.
Third-party culpability re: Chapter 10	State: evidence speculative, hearsay, untimely, and not tied to murder; excludes reasonable doubt	Goudeau: prior assault on victim by unidentified Hispanics shows other suspects and creates reasonable doubt	Denied. Court excluded as speculative, hearsay and untimely; no reasonable nexus to murder.
Waiver of mitigation	State: defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived mitigation; court colloquies and recesses adequate	Goudeau: waiver uninformed, coerced, counsel overruled, Sixth/Eighth Amendments violated	Denied. Court conducted adequate colloquy and found defendant competent; defendant may waive mitigation and counsel need not present mitigation over client’s objection.
Sufficiency of evidence for guilt and aggravators (esp. cruel)	State: DNA, ballistics, identifications, possession of victim’s property, modus operandi support guilt and (F)(6)/(F)(8) aggravators	Goudeau: insufficient evidence for multiple counts and especially cruel findings	Denied. Court found substantial evidence to support convictions and findings of especially cruel and the (F)(8) continuous course for Chou/Sanchez.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Butler, 232 Ariz. 84 (review standard for suppression motions)
State v. Buccini, 167 Ariz. 550 (probable cause / Gates fair-probability standard)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable-cause / fair-probability test for warrants)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (due process & preservation of evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (bad-faith requirement for failure to preserve potentially useful evidence)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (Due Process exclusion of identification only for suggestive police procedures)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability test for eyewitness ID)
State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60 (admission standard for other-act evidence and severance principles)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert admissibility framework referenced)
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (limits on opening statements and use of argument as evidence)