State v. Acosta
1 CA-CR 16-0097
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- On May 26, 2014, at a Walmart parking lot, witnesses observed Frankie Acosta grab and choke his girlfriend (A.O.), shove her into a white SUV, and then point a firearm at a bystander (A.S.), who retreated with hands raised.
- Two eyewitnesses (A.S. and Kelly Daley) gave written statements to police and later testified at trial; Walmart security video (no audio) captured the incident.
- Acosta was charged with aggravated assault (Count 1), misdemeanor assault/domestic violence (Count 2), and misconduct involving weapons (Count 3); a probation-revocation petition was also filed based on an earlier conviction.
- A jury convicted Acosta of aggravated assault (Count 1); the court found him guilty of Count 2; he later pled guilty to Count 3; the court found a probation violation. Sentences included 11.5 years (Count 1) plus 4 years for the probation violation, with credits for time served.
- At trial defense impeached witnesses using inconsistencies between their testimony and their prior written statements; the court allowed oral impeachment but refused to admit the written police statements (Exhibit 18).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by excluding witnesses’ written prior statements under Ariz. R. Evid. 806 | State: the written statements were part of police reports and should be excluded as offered | Acosta: written statements were prior inconsistent statements admissible for impeachment/substantive use | Court: No error — Rule 806 inapplicable because declarants testified; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether exclusion violated Ariz. R. Evid. 613 (extrinsic evidence) | State: exclusion proper | Acosta: Woods requires consideration of admitting extrinsic evidence even when witness admits inconsistency | Court: Acosta failed to preserve Rule 613 objection; applied fundamental-error review and found no reversible error; Woods distinguishable |
| Whether admitting the writings was necessary to assess credibility / prejudiced Acosta’s defense | Acosta: writings would assist jury in resolving conflicting accounts (self-defense claim) | State: jury heard oral impeachment and video; inconsistencies were collateral to guilt | Court: Any differences were collateral; video and testimony overwhelmingly supported conviction; no prejudice shown |
| Whether appellate review could reach probation revocation claim | State: waiver applies due to briefing defect | Acosta: sought delayed appeal of probation revocation | Court: Acosta waived challenge to probation revocation by failing to comply with briefing rules; court declined to address it |
Key Cases Cited
- Sucharew v. State, 205 Ariz. 16 (App. 2003) (standard for reviewing admissibility of impeachment evidence: abuse of discretion)
- Ayala v. State, 178 Ariz. 385 (App. 1994) (reversal only for clear, prejudicial abuse of discretion)
- Hernandez v. State, 191 Ariz. 553 (App. 1998) (Ariz. R. Evid. 806 permits impeachment of hearsay by absent declarants)
- Woods v. State, 141 Ariz. 446 (1984) (circumstances when extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements may be admitted despite witness admitting inconsistency)
- Henderson v. State, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental-error standard and burden when appellate counsel fails to preserve issues)
- Cox v. State, 217 Ariz. 353 (2007) (credibility and weight of testimony are for the trier of fact)