State v. Connatser, 1 CA-CR 15-0446

Defendant Edward Connatser and his fiancée MG had a violent confrontation after MG accused him of pursuing another woman; MG locked herself in a bedroom but Defendant forced entry and physically assaulted her (straddling, hair-pulling, choking, threats).
MG sustained multiple injuries; police arrested Defendant after he returned and attempted to have MG change clothing before officers arrived.
Charges: Count 1—assault (class 1 misdemeanor); Count 2—threatening/intimidating (class 1 misdemeanor); Counts 3 & 4—aggravated assault (class 4 felonies) for two choking episodes. Jury acquitted on one aggravated-assault count, convicted on the other counts; court imposed concurrent three-year probationary sentences with 60 days jail.
Day-before-trial disclosure: Defendant produced a Tempe police report showing MG had been cited previously for false reporting; the State had not disclosed that report and it did not show a conviction.
Trial court excluded the police report but allowed limited impeachment under Ariz. R. Evid. 608 by asking MG whether she had been cited for false reporting; the court barred inquiry into the circumstances tying that citation to Defendant’s alleged prior infidelity.
On appeal Defendant argued: (1) the court improperly limited cross-examination about MG’s motive/bias and that the State violated disclosure/Brady obligations, and (2) Count 1 was duplicitous risking a non‑unanimous verdict. The court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Connatser)	Held
Limitation on impeachment evidence of MG’s prior false report and motive/bias	Trial court properly excluded the police report and limited inquiry; State had no obligation to disclose report it did not possess	Court erroneously barred evidence that MG falsely reported the car theft to punish Connatser, which was admissible under Rule 404(b) and for impeachment; disclosure/Brady violation	Affirmed. Excluding the report and limiting questioning was within the court’s discretion under Rules 404(b) and 608; defendant still was able to impeach MG and elicit bias; no Brady/Crim. R. 15 violation because prosecutor did not possess the Tempe report.
Duplicitous charge / jury unanimity for Count 1 (assault)	Single criminal transaction: the acts forming Count 1 were part of one transaction and Connatser offered the same justification defense to each act, so unanimity instruction or election was not required sua sponte	Multiple distinct acts produced injuries; failure to require election or unanimity instruction could permit a non‑unanimous verdict	Affirmed. No error. Acts were part of the same criminal transaction and defendant’s single justification defense negated need for sua sponte election or unanimity remedy; no fundamental error shown.

State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147 (App. 2006) (standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404 (1983) (Rule 404(b) is not limited to listed purposes; other non‑character uses admissible)
State v. Bracy, 145 Ariz. 520 (1985) (limits on cross‑examination require reversal only if jury lacked sufficient information to assess witness bias)
State v. Klokic, 219 Ariz. 241 (App. 2008) (when multiple acts prove one charge, court must require election or unanimity unless acts are part of a single criminal transaction)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (framework for fundamental error review)