State v. Arvallo
232 Ariz. 200
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant, Josef Alexander Arvallo, appeals his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted armed robbery, and two counts of kidnapping.
- The offenses arose from a March 6, 2007 carwash shooting in north Phoenix during a planned faked robbery of a drug deal orchestrated with Tomas Rodriguez.
- Jury found Arvallo guilty on all charged offenses; the court sentenced natural life for the murders, 11.25-year terms for each attempted armed robbery, and 15.75-year terms for each kidnapping.
- Arvallo challenged the denials of mistrial motions (juror-question, prosecutorial misconduct) and a new-trial motion based on Brady material disclosure; the appellate court affirmed.
- During trial, juror safety concerns were raised by a juror’s written question; the court questioned jurors and instructed them, then denied mistrial.
- The state disclosed a potential Brady issue involving a crime-lab criminalist; the court conducted extensive hearings and ultimately denied a new-trial motion, finding no material Brady violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial based on juror question | State contends no prejudice; court addressed safety concerns openly | Arvallo argues the juror note showed bias and warranted mistrial | Affirmed denial of mistrial (no abuse of discretion) |
| Mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct | State argues disclosure of Jewell as an expert was sufficient; no ambush | Arvallo argues inadequate disclosure and potential prejudice | Affirmed denial of mistrial (no reversible error) |
| New trial based on Brady material disclosure | State contends late disclosure was not material; no probability of different outcome | Arvallo argues Brady violation affected credibility of key witnesses | Affirmed denial of new trial (no abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rojas v. State, 177 Ariz. 454 (Ariz. App. 1993) (juror impartiality; early questioning and preservation of rights)
- Eastlack v. State, 180 Ariz. 243 (Ariz. 1994) (juror prejudice; continuing to hear case with open mind)
- Murray v. State, 184 Ariz. 9 (Ariz. 1995) (standard for mistrial—unjustified unless justice thwarted)
- Mincey v. State, 141 Ariz. 425 (Ariz. 1984) (abuse of discretion standard for new trial)
- Chapple v. State, 135 Ariz. 281 (Ariz. 1983) (abuse of discretion; reasons must be tenable)
- State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290 (Ariz. 2000) (standard of review for mistrial decisions)