State v. Cota
229 Ariz. 136
| Ariz. | 2012Background
- Cota was convicted by jury of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of armed robbery, possession of narcotics, and unlawful flight; death sentence for one murder and prison terms for others were imposed.
- Martinez and Zavala disappeared December 30, 2003; their bodies were found in January 2004 in Zavala’s master bedroom closet, wrapped in plastic.
- Cota had coordinated with police during the investigation, fled after the crime, and was apprehended following a vehicle pursuit; DNA on his shoes included contributions from all three.
- Indictments were joined for trial; the State introduced evidence of flight to show consciousness of guilt; the court consolidated the cases with Cota’s consent.
- During penalty phase, aggravators included prior serious offense and the murder occurring while on release; the victim’s age and other statutory factors were considered.
- The Court of Appeals reviews the death sentence for abuse of discretion and evaluates constitutional challenges to the statute and trial conduct; resentencing on non-capital counts was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of flight evidence and joinder | State argues flight evidence is admissible and joinder proper. | Cota challenged flight evidence and joinder as improper. | Flight evidence and joinder upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
| Non-English speaking jurors and § 21-202(B)(3) constitutionality | Statute ensures English comprehension; fairness requires non-English speakers exclusion. | § 21-202(B)(3) unconstitutional for excluding a distinct group. | Statute constitutional; non-English speakers not a protected distinct group for Sixth Amendment purposes; state interest compelling. |
| Dismissal of Juror 46 for cause | Juror 46 improperly dismissed; insufficient opportunity to rehabilitate. | Juror 46 properly excused for cause; voir dire discretion. | No abuse of discretion; trial court properly excused Juror 46. |
| Miranda/delay in invocation during interrogation | Interrogation admissible; invocation not clear for page 24 statement; page 40 statement unambiguous. | Page 40 invocation of silence requires cessation; potential violation of Miranda. | Page 40 invocation was unambiguous; continued questioning analyzed under fundamental error framework; no fundamental error found. |
| Consecutive sentencing and use of prior convictions for aggravation and enhancement | Court properly used prior felonies to both enhance and aggravate; consecutive sentences required. | Court misapplied law, enforcing a non-existent presumption of consecutivity. | Remand for resentencing on non-capital counts; the court erred in treating consecutive sentences as mandatory. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (Ariz. 1993) (flight evidence admissible to show consciousness of guilt; remoteness affects weight, not admissibility)
- State v. Weible, 142 Ariz. 113 (Ariz. 1984) (flight evidence admissible when it indicates guilt; standard of review abuse of discretion)
- State v. Cordova, 109 Ariz. 439 (Ariz. 1973) (jury cross-section and language requirements; state interest in administering trials)
- State v. Finehout, 136 Ariz. 226 (Ariz. 1983) (page-quoted invocation analysis; ambiguity standard for invoking silence)
- State v. Garza, 192 Ariz. 171 (Ariz. 1998) (consecutive sentencing discretion; necessity to show reasons for concurrent vs. consecutive)