State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez, 305 P.3d 378

Background

Defendant Robert Hernandez forced victims Jeni Sanchez‑Rivera and Maria Diaz‑Payan into a Peoria home, bound them, and participated in an invasion in which Jeni, her husband Omar Guzman Diaz, and his brother Pablo Guzman Diaz were killed; Maria was shot and survived.
Maria identified Hernandez from a photo lineup; Martha Gonzalez (co‑lessee and mother of Hernandez’s children) told police Hernandez called saying "Omar and Jeni would not be bothering Sonia anymore."
Hernandez was convicted by a jury of three counts of first‑degree murder and one count of attempted murder; the jury imposed the death penalty for each murder.
Trial issues included multiple pro se requests to replace retained/appointed counsel, defense attempts to impeach the surviving victim Maria with alleged prior statements (without offering proof), and the State’s use of Martha’s prior inconsistent statements substantively.
The trial court found four aggravators for each murder (prior serious offense, especially cruel, committed while on release, multiple murders); the Arizona Supreme Court conducted an abuse‑of‑discretion review and affirmed convictions and sentences.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Hernandez's Argument	Held
Trial court’s handling of multiple requests to change counsel	Court’s Torres inquiry was adequate; no irreconcilable conflict shown; denying substitution proper	Counsel failed to communicate, visited rarely, refused to involve him, warranting new counsel	No abuse of discretion; inquiry satisfied Torres and denial appropriate given record and timing
Cross‑examination/impeachment of Maria (surviving victim)	Exclusion proper because defense failed to make offer of proof showing prior statements were materially inconsistent	Maria made prior inconsistent statements to Officer Rodriguez that should be admitted to impeach her credibility	Trial court did not err—failure to make offer of proof precluded appellate review; exclusion not reversible error
Use of Martha Gonzalez’s prior inconsistent statement substantively	Prior inconsistent statement admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(A); probative value outweighed prejudice	Substantive use of the statement improperly bolstered guilt and was prejudicial	No fundamental error; statement admissible substantively and Rule 403 concerns did not require exclusion under Allred factors
Sufficiency of evidence for premeditation and (F)(6) especially cruel aggravator; overall aggravators/mitigation balancing	Circumstantial evidence (planning, knowing victims, not concealing identity, statements, binding victims, victims’ terror/awareness) supports premeditation and cruelty; aggravators supported	Argued insufficient proof of premeditation and especially cruel conduct; challenged (F)(2) and (F)(7)(a) aggravators	Substantial evidence supports premeditation and (F)(6) cruelty for each murder; (F)(2) and (F)(7)(a) validly found; jury did not abuse discretion in weighing mitigation vs aggravation

Key Cases Cited

State v. Torres, 208 Ariz. 340 (trial court must inquire into basis of request to substitute counsel)
State v. Gomez, 231 Ariz. 219 (defendant not entitled to counsel of choice or meaningful relationship; standards for substitution)
State v. Cromwell, 211 Ariz. 181 (irreconcilable conflict standard for new counsel)
United States v. Lott, 310 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir.) (need for hearing when specific factually based allegations are made)
State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (premeditation and accomplice liability; circumstantial evidence may suffice)
State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence for premeditation)
State v. VanWinkle, 230 Ariz. 387 (definition of premeditation: intent and reflection)
State v. Allred, 134 Ariz. 274 (factors to assess unfair prejudice when admitting prior inconsistent statements substantively)
State v. Nelson, 229 Ariz. 180 (circumstantial proof of guilt and weighing of mitigation)