State v. Carrizoza
1 CA-CR 16-0709
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- In November 2012 Carrizoza and co-defendant Steven Benavidez (both alleged Mexican Mafia members) located E.L.; Carrizoza pulled E.L. from a car and shot him dead.
- Benavidez testified for the State in exchange for a reduced sentence; he implicated Carrizoza as the shooter. Carrizoza testified he was not a gang member and blamed Benavidez for the shooting.
- A grand jury indicted Carrizoza for murder (premeditated/felony murder), kidnapping, assisting a criminal street gang, and two counts of threatening/intimidating. The jury convicted on all counts, finding felony murder.
- Carrizoza moved for judgments of acquittal at the close of the State’s case; the superior court denied the motion. He appealed the sufficiency of evidence on kidnapping and threatening/intimidating and challenged allowing the State’s gang expert to remain in the courtroom while Carrizoza testified.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed denial of the directed verdict for abuse of discretion and Rule 615/expert-presence for abuse of discretion plus prejudice, and affirmed convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping | Evidence showed restraint by intimidation and a gun; jury could find intent to inflict injury or aid felony | Carrizoza: E.L. left voluntarily; no force, no pointed gun or threats so no restraint | Court: Evidence of surrounding, statements (“take a ride”), and handgun supported restraint by intimidation; denial affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for threatening/intimidating | Victims’ testimony and presence of guns supported objective finding of threats to promote gang interests | Carrizoza: Victims said they were not afraid or forced, so insufficient evidence | Court: Objective standard governs; other testimony showed fear/intimidation (C.M. uncomfortable, R.C. feared being shot); denial affirmed |
| Effect on felony murder and gang-assisting counts if underlying felonies insufficient | State: underlying felonies were supported so felony murder and gang counts stand | Carrizoza: If kidnapping and threatening counts lack evidence, felony murder and gang-assisting must be vacated | Court: Because underlying felonies were sufficiently supported, felony murder and assisting a criminal street gang convictions stand |
| Allowing State’s expert to remain in courtroom during defendant testimony (Rule 615) | State: Expert’s presence was essential to form rebuttal opinions on gang affiliation and tattoo meanings | Carrizoza: Expert heard testimony and could tailor rebuttal, causing prejudice | Court: Expert’s presence fell under Rule 615(c) exception; even if improper, no prejudice shown (expert’s opinions consistent; could rely on record); no error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yegan, 223 Ariz. 213 (App. 2009) (standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64 (1990) (directed verdict requires absence of probative facts)
- State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503 (App. 2005) (circumstantial or direct evidence may support convictions)
- State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1 (1993) (cases go to jury when reasonable minds can differ on inferences)
- In re Ryan A., 202 Ariz. 19 (App. 2002) (objective test for threatened or intimidated victim)
- State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471 (1996) (appellate review of Rule 615 disputes requires showing of abuse of discretion and prejudice)