State v. Garcia, 1 CA-CR 16-0155

Background

In March 2012, appellant Chad Daniel Garcia was accused by his girlfriend’s 15‑year‑old daughter of rape; Garcia was later indicted on sexual assault and two counts of sexual abuse of a minor.
A jury convicted Garcia of sexual assault but acquitted him on the two sexual‑abuse counts.
During trial, the court held several off‑the‑record bench conferences; Garcia did not contemporaneously object on the record to most of them.
Two juror issues arose midtrial: Juror No. 1 was reported asleep during opening statements and was excused; Juror No. 4 disclosed post‑selection that he had once worked for the same large employer as Garcia but did not know or work with him.
At sentencing the court found multiple aggravating and mitigating circumstances, considered aggravators not found by the jury, and imposed the statutory presumptive term of seven years’ imprisonment for sexual assault.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of appellate record from off‑the‑record bench conferences	Court’s unrecorded bench conferences denied Garcia a preserved record and meaningful appeal	Unrecorded conferences did not cause demonstrable prejudice; absent objection, no fundamental error	No fundamental error; Garcia failed to show prejudice; some matters discernible from trial context and the court presumed objections where needed for review.
Dismissal of Juror No. 1 for sleeping	Juror was only briefly resting and could recount opening statements; dismissal was improper	Bailiff’s observations and juror admission supported that juror fell asleep, justifying excusal for cause	No abuse of discretion; court reasonably found juror slept and could not fulfill duties.
Failure to voir dire Juror No. 4 about shared employer	Juror’s prior employment overlap with Garcia warranted further on‑the‑record questioning or excusal	Juror did not know or work with Garcia, failed to recognize him, and promptly disclosed overlap; no demonstrated partiality	No abuse of discretion; court reasonably concluded juror could be fair (though on‑the‑record questioning would have been preferable).
Sentencing — use of aggravating factors not found by jury	Court relied on aggravators (victim harm, prior non‑felony convictions, position of trust) that the jury rejected or that lacked felony basis, producing improper sentence	Presumptive term is the maximum authorized by the jury verdict alone; court’s aggravator findings did not render the presumptive sentence illegal and were supported by the record	No fundamental error and no abuse of discretion; presumptive seven‑year term lawful and supported by evidence.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Scott, 187 Ariz. 474 (failure to record bench conferences is not fundamental error absent objection or demonstrable prejudice)
State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1 (trial court not required to verbatim‑record bench conferences; after‑the‑fact record can suffice)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (standard for fundamental error review)
State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376 (trial court’s dismissal of juror reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127 (trial court best positioned to probe juror fairness; further on‑the‑record questioning may be warranted)
State v. Cota, 229 Ariz. 136 (court’s observation and context relevant to juror sleeping claims)
State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4 (prejudice or juror partiality must appear affirmatively in the record)
State v. Johnson, 210 Ariz. 438 (presumptive term is maximum authorized by jury verdict alone)
State v. Olmstead, 213 Ariz. 534 (appellate review of sentencing discretion)
State v. Paxton, 186 Ariz. 580 (inability to show on record that an objection was preserved may constitute prejudice)