State v. Blanchard, 1 CA-CR 15-0787

Background

Blanchard was investigated through three controlled buys (Aug 26, 27, 29, 2013) using a paid confidential informant (CI) with audio/video recording and officers monitoring a live feed.
CI purchased methamphetamine and marijuana on Aug 26–27 and methamphetamine plus hydrocodone on Aug 29.
Blanchard was charged with multiple counts: three counts for methamphetamine, two for marijuana, and one for sale of a narcotic (hydrocodone); jury convicted on two marijuana counts and the hydrocodone count.
At trial the CI did not testify; detectives played the recordings and Detective Powell made identification and accuracy statements, some implying the CI’s confirmations.
Trial court admitted recordings and still photos from videos; defense objected on Confrontation, severance, and untimely disclosure grounds.
The court sentenced Blanchard to concurrent prison terms; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Blanchard)	Held
Confrontation Clause — admission of detective testimony implying CI statements	Testimony did not recount testimonial out-of-court statements or was harmless because videos admitted and detective clarified personal observations	Admission of detective testimony implying CI confirmations violated Crawford because CI unavailable and defendant had no prior cross-examination opportunity	Some detective testimony implied testimonial hearsay in violation of Confrontation Clause but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given recordings, corroborating buys with face visible, and clarified testimony
Severance of counts	Counts were of similar character and connected (same seller, buyer, location, protocols, close timeframe); joinder was proper and promoted fair adjudication	Joinder prejudiced Blanchard; August 27/29 videos showing his face unfairly prejudiced Aug 26 charges; alleged misstatements about license plate increased prejudice	Joinder was proper under Rule 13.3(a); defendant failed to show compelling prejudice and jury instructions and separate consideration of counts cured any potential unfair prejudice
Timeliness of disclosure — still photographs from videos	Photos’ content was effectively disclosed when the videos were disclosed; continuing duty satisfied	Photos were not timely disclosed and were unduly prejudicial; sanction should have been imposed	Admission of stills was not an abuse: videos had been timely disclosed, photos derived from disclosed videos, and any late disclosure was harmless; no sanctions required
Harmless-error standard application	N/A (State argues any error harmless)	Confrontation violations and disclosure/severance errors affected verdict	Court applied Van Arsdall/Henderson harmless-error framework and concluded errors (limited testimonial implication) were harmless beyond reasonable doubt given strength and corroboration of evidence

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay requires declarant testimony or prior opportunity for cross-examination)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (factors for harmlessness of Confrontation Clause errors)
State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (2006) (standard of review for Confrontation Clause evidentiary rulings)
State v. Parks, 211 Ariz. 19 (App. 2005) (harmless-error review for Confrontation violations)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (harmless-error standard: beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Prince, 204 Ariz. 156 (2003) (abuse-of-discretion review for severance denials; compelling prejudice standard)
State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (2006) (purpose of disclosure rules and review standard for disclosure adequacy)
State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421 (2016) (consider only evidence before the court at time of severance ruling)
State v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 31 (2013) (jury instructions can ameliorate joinder prejudice)
State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 (2003) (presumption jurors follow jury instructions)
State v. Burns, 237 Ariz. 1 (2015) (denial of severance can be abusive despite instructions when distinct prejudice exists)
State v. Johnson, 212 Ariz. 425 (2006) (joinder prejudice mitigated by separate-consideration instruction)
State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484 (2013) (appellate view of facts in light most favorable to sustain verdict)