State v. Aschenbrenner
1 CA-CR 16-0325
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- June 2013 fight: victim D.H. and others fought Randy (appellant’s younger brother) and his friends; groups later separated but a second confrontation occurred when Andrew Aschenbrenner arrived.
- During the second confrontation D.H. collapsed with fatal stab wounds; Aschenbrenner kicked D.H. while he was on the ground; the knife used was later recovered from D.H.’s body.
- Aschenbrenner was indicted for first-degree murder and the State alleged an aggravating circumstance (harm to victim’s immediate family); jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder and found the aggravator proved.
- At trial two eyewitnesses (Maestas and Davis) gave conflicting statements; on cross-examination prior inconsistent statements were elicited and the State attempted to rehabilitate them on redirect.
- Aschenbrenner sought to play portions of recorded police interviews under Ariz. R. Evid. 106 to provide context; the trial court denied admission of Maestas’s recording (because she admitted the inconsistent statements) and did not play Davis’s recording after the court sustained an objection but allowed rephrasing; no recordings were played.
- Sentenced to 18 years with 1056 days presentence credit; appellant moved for new trial arguing erroneous exclusion of recorded statements, appealed; court modified credit to 1058 days but otherwise affirmed conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was entitled to play portions of Maestas’s recorded police interview under Rule 106 after the State rehabilitated her on redirect | State: rehabilitating witness with prior consistent statements was proper and recordings unnecessary | Aschenbrenner: the recording was needed to place Maestas’s statements in context and to correct the State’s characterization | Court: No abuse of discretion — Maestas admitted the inconsistent statements, so the recording was cumulative and properly excluded |
| Whether defendant was entitled to play portions of Davis’s recorded police interview under Rule 106 after the State’s redirect question | State: rephrased redirect to avoid mischaracterization and recordings not required | Aschenbrenner: recording was necessary to prevent misleading the jury and to provide completeness under Rule 106 | Court: Issue waived — appellant did not timely pursue Rule 106 at trial and raised it first in new-trial motion; reviewed only for fundamental error and appellant did not argue fundamental error |
| Whether exclusion of the recordings constituted reversible or fundamental error | State: exclusion was proper or not preserved so not reviewable | Aschenbrenner: exclusion deprived him of context and was prejudicial | Court: No fundamental error shown; conviction affirmed |
| Whether presentence incarceration credit was correctly calculated | State: conceded error in credit calculation | Aschenbrenner: claimed entitlement to 1058 days credit | Court: Modify sentence to reflect 1058 days credit |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Steinle, 239 Ariz. 415 (discussing abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (establishing fundamental-error standard for claims raised first on appeal)
- State v. Spreitz, 190 Ariz. 129 (failure to preserve an evidentiary theory at trial waives it on appeal)
- State v. Larin, 233 Ariz. 202 (same: untimely trial objections waive appellate relief except for fundamental error)
- State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349 (appellant’s failure to argue fundamental error results in waiver)
- State v. Dixon, 226 Ariz. 545 (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)