State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick
318 P.3d 877
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- 2009: S disclosed molestation to a church youth group leader, triggering police and CAC involvement.
- Haverstick was charged with three counts: two sexual-conduct-with-minor charges and one molestation charge.
- Trial: S testified to oral sex, touching, and S’s response; jury acquitted on one count.
- Court sentenced Haverstick to life without parole plus a 17-year term for the molestation; convictions upheld on two counts.
- Appellate review focused on prosecutorial conduct, ex post facto challenges to assessments, and a criminal restitution order.
- Court vacated the criminal restitution order but affirmed convictions, sentences, and assessments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the prosecutor impermissibly vouch for a witness? | Haverstick argues prosecutorial vouching denied fair trial. | Haverstick contends remarks placed government prestige on S. | No fundamental error; remarks viewed in context and cured by instructions. |
| Do the assessments violate ex post facto or §1-246 for pre-enactment offenses? | Haverstick argues §13-3821(Q) and §12-116.07 are punitive retroactive laws. | State contends statute is nonpunitive regulatory funding. | Assessments not punitive retroactively; no ex post facto violation. |
| Is the $500 forensic assessment under §12-116.07 punitive? | Haverstick challenges ex post facto/penalty nature. | State asserts nonpunitive remedial purpose. | Not punitive; statute serves funding of investigations and is valid. |
| Was the criminal restitution order properly imposed at sentencing? | CRO improperly entered before sentence term expired. | CRO supported by sentencing minute entry. | CRO vacated; remaining convictions and assessments affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mangum, 214 Ariz. 165, 150 P.3d 252 (Ariz. App. 2007) (framework for reviewing factual sufficiency and credibility on appeal)
- State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 783 P.2d 1184 (Ariz. 1989) (prosecutorial vouching standards; two forms of vouching)
- State v. Hernandez, 170 Ariz. 301, 823 P.2d 1309 (Ariz. App. 1991) (reviewing vouching in closing statements with jury instructions)
- State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 314 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. 2013) (cure of improper vouching by jury instruction)
- State v. Corona, 188 Ariz. 85, 932 P.2d 1356 (Ariz. App. 1997) (contextual analysis of prosecutorial statements about witness credibility)
- State v. Henry, 224 Ariz. 164, 228 P.3d 900 (Ariz. App. 2010) (ex post facto/penalty analysis for statutes creating assessments)
- Noble v. United States, 171 Ariz. 171, 829 P.2d 1217 (Ariz. 1992) (test for punitive effect of statutes with remedial purpose)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (determinative framework for punitive vs. nonpunitive purposes)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 168 (Sup. Ct. 1963) ( Kennedy factors for punitive nature of sanctions)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (money penalties as civil sanctions; nonpunitive characterization)
- Ward v. United States, 448 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1980) (historical context of punitive vs. regulatory schemes)
- Ursery v. United States, 518 U.S. 267 (Sup. Ct. 1996) (dual-use nature of civil/criminal punishment analysis)