State v. Boozer
1 CA-CR 17-0134
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Boozer was detained at a Phoenix Walmart after loss-prevention observed shoplifting; Phoenix police responded and attempted to handcuff her.
- Boozer struggled with officers, was charged with resisting arrest (use/threat of physical force against officers) and shoplifting; jury convicted on both counts.
- Before trial Boozer moved to bar pretrial interviews of the officers under the Victims’ Bill of Rights by arguing the officers were not "victims." The superior court found they were victims and denied the motion.
- Boozer contended the Victims’ Bill of Rights and later developments (including Jurden and statutory amendments) implicitly overruled earlier authority treating officers as victims of resisting arrest.
- The trial proceeded without pretrial interviews of the officers; defense cross‑examined at preliminary hearing and trial and had access to a video of the altercation.
- The court affirmed convictions, holding officers qualified as victims under prior precedent and that any restriction on interviews did not violate due process or cause reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Boozer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arresting officers are "victims" under the Victims’ Bill of Rights for resisting arrest | Jurden and 2012 statutory changes implicitly overruled Sorkhabi; officers should not be treated as victims and thus defense entitled to pretrial interviews | Sorkhabi remains controlling: resisting arrest (use/threat of force) is a crime against the officer, so officers are victims and may refuse interviews | Court affirmed Sorkhabi; officers are victims here and superior court did not err |
| Whether statutory amendments or Jurden’s ambiguity analysis eliminate victim status for officers | Legislative changes (definition of criminal offense; inclusion of passive resistance) and Jurden’s view of §13-2508 support limiting victim status | Amendments do not remove the provision penalizing use/threat of force; Jurden addressed unit of prosecution, not victim status | Amendments and Jurden do not undermine Sorkhabi; victim status remains for this conduct |
| Whether denial of pretrial interviews violated Boozer’s due process/right to a fair trial | Denial prevented competent defense preparation and violated minimal competence standards for counsel | Defendant has no general right to pretrial discovery from a victim; defendant must show reasonable probability that interview would yield due-process material; here other sources existed | Due-process not violated: defense cross-examined at preliminary hearing/trial, had video, and failed to show interviews would produce material exculpatory information |
| If error, whether harm was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Any error in victim designation or interview denial prejudiced trial | Even if error, any error was harmless because defense had access to evidence and cross-examination opportunities | Any error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jurden, 239 Ariz. 526 (Ariz. 2016) (held resisting arrest is an event-directed offense and analyzed unit of prosecution)
- State v. Sorkhabi, 202 Ariz. 450 (App. 2002) (police officer can be a "victim" of resisting arrest)
- State v. Sarullo, 219 Ariz. 431 (App. 2008) (defendant must show reasonable probability that victim-held information contains due-process material before compelling disclosure)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (harmless-error standard for preserved trial errors)
- State v. Draper, 162 Ariz. 433 (1989) (failure to interview witnesses does not automatically equal ineffective assistance; other sources may suffice)