State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf
311 P.3d 244
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Glissendorf was convicted at trial of two counts of child molestation and received consecutive prison terms totaling 34 years.
- The State delayed prosecuting Olivia’s and Tamora’s allegations, with Olivia first reporting in 2001 and the State reopening in 2010 after Tamora surfaced in 2010.
- The trial court denied a motion to dismiss count one based on pre-indictment delay; the defense challenged the delay as a due process violation.
- During a delay, a 2001 video interview of Olivia was destroyed by police policy and CPS, leaving only a later Detective Ridgeway report in existence.
- Glissendorf sought a Willits jury instruction to allow an adverse inference from the lost video; the court denied it.
- The court later admitted Wanda’s testimony of a 1976 similar act under Rule 404(c), which Glissendorf challenged on appeal and which the court remanded to reconsider on the admissibility of that evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-indictment delay due process | Glissendorf argues delay violated due process | State contends no intentional delay and no prejudice | No due process violation; denial of motion affirmed |
| Willits instruction for destroyed evidence | Lost video could exculpate; instruction warranted | No exculpatory potential shown; no instruction needed | Trial court abused discretion; Willits instruction required; reversal on count one |
| Rule 404(c) evidence of aberrant propensity | Wanda's testimony admissible to show aberrant propensity | Court should balance prejudice and probative value | Remand to determine admissibility; potential affirmation or reversal of count two upon remand |
| Remand scope for Rule 404(c) ruling | Court should apply correct 404(c) balancing | Remand not necessary if evidence inadmissible | Remand ordered; admissibility to be reassessed with record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lacy, 187 Ariz. 340 (Arizona Supreme Court 1996) (due process requires intentional delay or prejudice to defendant)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1977) (due process limits on pre-indictment delay)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (due process considerations for delay and prejudice)
- State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 (Arizona Supreme Court 1964) (Willits instruction allows negative inference for lost evidence)
- State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459 (Arizona Supreme Court 1984) (exculpatory potential of lost evidence and standard for Willits instruction)
- State v. Leslie, 147 Ariz. 38 (Arizona Supreme Court 1985) (Willits framework and necessity to preserve fair trial when evidence lost)
- State v. Youngblood, 173 Ariz. 502 (Arizona Supreme Court 1993) (purpose and effect of lost evidence on due process and jury inferences)