321 P.3d 432
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Border Patrol found 11 men walking in desert near Gila Bend; 10 backpacks with about 477 pounds of marijuana were abandoned.
- Defendant was hiding under a blanket with three men; he was arrested and charged with sale or transportation of marijuana.
- Trial trial focused on whether trial testimony constituted drug courier profile evidence or permissible modus operandi evidence.
- Motion in limine sought to preclude drug courier profile testimony; the court reserved ruling and allowed trial-by-trial determinations.
- Defendant did not object to challenged testimony at trial; appeal proceeds under fundamental error review because ruling on the motion was not ruled on.
- DNA testing cost was challenged on appeal; the court later vacated the cost order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of drug MO vs profile | State: testimony educated jurors on MO of drug trafficking. | Garcia-Quintana: profile evidence improper as substantive guilt evidence. | Admissible as modus operandi evidence; not improper profile evidence |
| Was profile evidence error preserved | State: motion in limine preserved issues despite no trial objections. | Garcia-Quintana: no preservation; fundamental error needed. | Reviewed for fundamental error; no reversible error found |
| Prosecutor's closing argument regarding MO | Prosecutor properly argued MO consistent inferences from expert testimony. | Garcia-Quintana: improper suggestion of profile-based guilt. | Closing argument within proper scope; not error |
| DNA testing cost | State concedes order erred; must be vacated. | Garcia-Quintana: should pay DNA testing cost. | DNA-testing cost order vacated; affirmed conviction as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lee, 191 Ariz. 542 (Ariz. 1998) (drug courier profile admissibility and limitations)
- State v. Gonzalez, 229 Ariz. 550 (Ariz. 2012) (modos operandi evidence admissible to explain organization methods)
- Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225 (9th Cir. 1997) (expert MO testimony allowed to explain organization operations)
- Morin, 627 F.3d 985 (5th Cir. 2010) (experts may analyze MO but not give ultimate legal conclusions)
- State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378 (Ariz. 1986) (distinguishes admissibility of background testimony from characterizations of victims)
- State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (Ariz. 1993) (prosecutors may summarize evidence and urge reasonable inferences)
- United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza, 645 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2011) (MO testimony context for drug trafficking organizations)
- United States v. Doe, 149 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 1998) (MO expert may explain organization practices; not inapplicable in all cases)