State v. Begay
1 CA-CR 15-0743
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- At ~3:00 a.m. on Feb. 24, 2013, a trooper stopped Nathaniel Begay for speeding (>80 mph) on the Red Mountain Freeway. Begay told the trooper his license was revoked and asked if he was going to jail.
- Trooper observed signs of impairment, arrested Begay, and a blood draw before 5:00 a.m. showed a BAC of .202.
- MVD testimony established Begay had no valid Arizona license on the offense date and that multiple revocation/suspension notices had been mailed beginning Nov. 2011.
- Begay testified he did not receive MVD notices, believed his license was valid, worked out-of-state as a welder from 2010–2013, and that employers performed background checks which never alerted him to license problems.
- A jury convicted Begay of two counts of aggravated DUI (Class 4 felonies) and found he was on felony probation; the court found four prior felonies (two historical) and imposed concurrent presumptive 10-year terms.
Issues
| Issue | Begay's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court refused juror-submitted questions about whether employers required travel or valid license | Questions were relevant to Begay's claim he reasonably believed his license was valid (supports his credibility) | Questions were irrelevant to knowledge at offense time, hearsay, and cumulative of Begay’s testimony | No abuse of discretion; questions were irrelevant, would elicit hearsay, and were cumulative |
| Prosecutor vouched for trooper in rebuttal (argued trooper had no bias/prejudice) | Prosecutor improperly vouched, warranting reversal | Remarks were in context, prosecutor repeatedly said jury decides credibility; any error was harmless and jury instruction cured it | No reversible error; remarks not so prejudicial as to deny due process |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Agee, 181 Ariz. 58 (App. 1994) (knowledge of license status relevant to aggravated-DUI elements)
- State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (2006) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290 (2000) (framework for reviewing prosecutorial remarks)
- State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268 (1994) (two forms of impermissible prosecutorial vouching defined)
- State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 (2007) (prosecutorial misconduct requires showing denial of due process)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for fundamental-error review when no contemporaneous objection)
- State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (2006) (presumption that juries follow curative/instructional guidance)