State v. Bustillos
1 CA-CR 16-0187
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Defendant Manuel Bustillos was tried for multiple sexual offenses against his daughter D.B., based on her testimony and his partial admissions; one count involving another daughter (N.B.) was severed and later dismissed.
- The State sought to admit a police-interview recording of Bustillos’s son under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b) and 404(c), in which the son described observing sexualized conduct (peering through windows; holding out D.B.’s shorts) years earlier.
- The trial court listened to the son’s recorded interview and ruled the other-acts evidence admissible under Rule 404(c) (and 404(b)), but used slightly imprecise language about the required finding of “clear and convincing” proof.
- Bustillos requested subpoenas and an evidentiary hearing to interview/call his son, wife, and N.B.; the court denied interviews and an evidentiary hearing for the mother and N.B., but Bustillos personally interviewed his son and the court relied on the recordings.
- Mid-trial, defense moved to remove a juror (Juror 8) for alleged extrajudicial comments; after individual juror questioning the court denied removal.
- After conviction on all counts, the court imposed presumptive sentences; Bustillos argued the court failed to properly consider mitigating circumstances at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c)/(b) | State: son’s recorded statements show aberrant sexual propensity and meet 404(c) factors; admissible without live testimony | Bustillos: court misapplied burden (must find clear and convincing) and denied right to develop contrary evidence via subpoenas/evidentiary hearing | Court erred in phrasing but record (son’s detailed recorded statements + defendant’s admissions) provided clear and convincing support; no reversible error; admission affirmed |
| Right to evidentiary hearing / subpoena witnesses on 404 motion | N/A (State did not present live witnesses; relied on interview recording) | Bustillos: requested to interview and subpoena son, wife, N.B. to challenge credibility; sought evidentiary hearing | Court not required to hold hearing absent dispute of material fact; trial court properly exercised discretion because recordings and other record evidence sufficed |
| Juror removal for alleged extrajudicial discussion | N/A | Bustillos: Juror 8 should be removed for cause based on reporting juror’s statements about repeated comments and expressed opinions | Court’s inquiry (individual juror questioning) and Juror 8’s assurances supported denial; appellate court finds no abuse of discretion |
| Consideration of mitigating circumstances at sentencing | State: presumptive terms appropriate; no sufficient mitigation | Bustillos: trial court refused to consider mitigation or required causal nexus | Trial court considered proffered mitigation and permissibly concluded it was not sufficiently substantial to warrant mitigation; no fundamental error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421 (2016) (outlines three specific findings required before admitting other-acts evidence under Rule 404(c))
- State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40 (2004) (discusses inadmissibility of other-bad-acts to show character and limits on credibility determinations without victim testimony)
- State v. LeBrun, 222 Ariz. 183 (App. 2009) (explains that live testimony or an evidentiary hearing is not always required on 404 motions)
- State v. Vega, 228 Ariz. 24 (App. 2011) (harmless-error analysis for other-acts evidentiary rulings and sufficiency of victim testimony)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for fundamental-error review)