State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez
229 Ariz. 573
| Ariz. | 2012Background
- Gutierrez was convicted of second-degree murder for a 1998 drive-by shooting; Cupis confessed as the shooter and Cupis’s confessions were admitted at various stages of the proceedings.
- DNA testing ordered under A.R.S. § 13-4240 in 2007–2009 showed hair on the cap belonged to Cupis and the stain was a mixture including Cupis but excluding Gutierrez.
- Gutierrez sought postconviction relief (Rule 32) claiming newly discovered DNA evidence and actual innocence under Rules 32.1(e) and (h).
- The superior court held a status conference, concluded the DNA results were not exculpatory, and denied relief without a proper evidentiary hearing.
- The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded to determine whether a Rule 32 hearing is required and what additional evidence might entitle Gutierrez to relief.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to clarify the interaction between § 13-4240(K) and Rule 32 in the postconviction DNA-testing context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 13-4240(K) requires a hearing when DNA results are favorable to the petitioner | Gutierrez argues the favorable results entitle him to a Rule 32 hearing | State contends the results do not automatically mandate a hearing absent disputed facts | Yes; a hearing is required, though the form may be a Rule 32 hearing and not necessarily an evidentiary in all-facts-disputed cases. |
| Whether the DNA results in this case were favorable to Gutierrez | Gutierrez maintains the results favor him by undermining Cupis as shooter | State maintains results are not exculpatory and do not fully exonerate Gutierrez | Yes, the results are favorable because they place Cupis as shooter and do not implicate Gutierrez. |
| Whether the superior court’s status conference satisfied § 13-4240(K) | Gutierrez contends a hearing was required | State contends a status conference suffices if no disputes remain | No; a proper hearing was required under § 13-4240(K) and the status conference was insufficient. |
| Whether newly discovered evidence can be considered under Rule 32 after favorable DNA results | Gutierrez seeks relief under Rule 32.1(e) and (h) based on additional evidence beyond DNA | State argues DNA alone may not trigger Rule 32 relief without more | Remand to allow consideration of additional evidence and determine eligibility for relief under Rule 32.1(e) or (h) and whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hansen, 215 Ariz. 287 (Ariz. 2007) (statutory interpretation; standard of review for postconviction relief)
- State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (Ariz. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard; colorable claim requires potential relief)
- State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323 (Ariz. 1990) (colorable claim requires a hearing if facts could change outcome)
- State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2002) (Rule 32 procedures; evidentiary hearing when material issues exist)
- State v. Krum, 183 Ariz. 288 (Ariz. 1995) (purpose of Rule 32 evidentiary hearings; fact-finding)
- State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433 (Ariz. 1986) (Rule 32 purpose; full record for review)
- State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392 (Ariz. 1985) (limitations on evidentiary hearings; reliance on record)