State v. Faria, 1 CA-CR 23-0504

Shawn Faria was convicted of indecent exposure, aggravated assault, and misdemeanor assault involving his partner's minor children between 2016 and 2020.
The case involved the admission of prior bad acts, specifically allegations that Faria molested one child, Haley, in Tucson before the charged period.
Three short segments of a recorded phone call reporting Faria's conduct were admitted into evidence; the full recording was unavailable due to phone destruction.
Faria moved to suppress the other acts evidence and the phone segments, and requested a jury instruction (Willits) because of the missing evidence.
The trial court admitted the evidence, refused to give the Willits instruction, and Faria was convicted on most counts and sentenced to six years and 30 days.
On appeal, Faria challenged the admission of the prior acts evidence, the phone recordings, and the denial of the Willits instruction.

Issue	Faria's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admission of prior acts (Rule 404(c))	Prior molestation allegations were not proven, timeline/specifications unclear	Prior act proven by clear and convincing evidence via child’s interview	Properly admitted; court found sufficient evidence and credibility
Admission of partial phone recordings	Admission violated due process; full phone call not available	State never had the full recording; no bad faith or prejudice	Admitted properly; no evidence of bad faith, loss, or prejudice
Denial of Willits instruction	Missing evidence required jury instruction to infer prejudice	State cannot lose or destroy what it never possessed or controlled	Properly denied; evidence not in State’s possession, no prejudice shown

State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 (jury may infer unfavorable consequences from state’s destruction of evidence)
State v. Lehr, 227 Ariz. 140 (standard for reviewing admission of prior bad acts evidence)
State v. Terrazas, 189 Ariz. 580 (clear and convincing evidence standard for prior bad acts)
State v. Williams, 111 Ariz. 175 (victim testimony sufficient for certain convictions)
State v. Jefferson, 126 Ariz. 341 (reversal for evidence destruction absent bad faith and prejudice)
State v. Youngblood, 173 Ariz. 502 (uncertainty over nature of lost evidence precludes showing of prejudice)