State v. Gehon
1 CA-CR 15-0789
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Victim S.C., a minor under defendant Anthony Gehon’s custodial guardianship, disclosed sexual exploitation and prostitution orchestrated by Gehon after an assault and medical disclosure in July 2010; DNA from S.C. was found on Gehon’s penis.
- Police investigation produced videos, photos, phones, ads, and witness statements indicating Gehon recruited, controlled, advertised for, supervised, and took proceeds from women (some minors) engaged in prostitution; multiple victims testified to sexual and physical abuse.
- The State charged Gehon with numerous counts including pandering, child prostitution, sexual conduct with a minor (including special-relationship counts), sexual exploitation, furnishing obscene items to a minor, assault/aggravated assault, and illegal control of an enterprise; 25 counts were dismissed pre-trial in part.
- At a lengthy trial, the jury convicted Gehon on most counts after hearing extensive other-act evidence and recorded victim interviews; he was sentenced to over 490 years combined.
- On appeal Gehon challenged: exclusion of evidence about a prior sexual allegation by S.C., admission and scope of other-act propensity evidence, sufficiency of evidence on several counts, and whether a riding crop qualified as a dangerous instrument for aggravated assault and whether an enterprise existed for the enterprise-control charge.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Gehon's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of prior sexual-history evidence of S.C. | Rape-shield permits exclusion; alternative impeachment evidence existed and charges were not forcible-sex offenses | Court should have allowed impeachment with prior alleged false rape report to show untruthfulness and motive to lie | Court: no abuse of discretion; exclusion proper under A.R.S. §13-1421 and Rule 608(b); defense had ample cross-examination and inconsistencies were admitted |
| Admission of other-act evidence (propensity / 404) | Other acts admissible to show plan, motive, preparation, knowledge, and aberrant sexual propensity under Rules 404(b)/(c); recordings and expert testimony supported findings | Other-act findings unreliable (no live victim testimony), inflammatory details should be redacted or excluded | Court: no abuse of discretion; recorded statements and expert analysis sufficed; details probative to victims’ submission and plan; limiting instruction given |
| Whether riding crop was a "dangerous instrument" for aggravated assault (Counts 32, 65) | Evidence showed severe whipping, threats to cause miscarriage, and permanent scarring (D.S.), supporting dangerous-instrument finding | Riding crop not inherently dangerous; insufficient evidence for serious-injury risk for each count | Court: affirmed aggravated assault as to Count 65 (D.S.) but modified Count 32 (T.I.) to simple assault — insufficient evidence of dangerous-instrument use for T.I.; remand for resentencing |
| Sufficiency of evidence for illegal control of an enterprise (Count 130) | Testimony showed association with at least one other (recruiter/transport) and use of proceeds to maintain prostitution business, satisfying enterprise element | No enterprise separate from defendant; insufficient proof of distinct enterprise | Court: sufficient evidence; association with another person in furtherance of unlawful prostitution constituted an enterprise under controlling statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla, 238 Ariz. 560 (App. 2015) (interpreting Arizona rape-shield statute and exceptions for prior false allegations)
- State v. Gilfillan, 196 Ariz. 396 (App. 2000) (trial court discretion to exclude prior sexual-conduct evidence and weigh probative value vs. prejudice)
- State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40 (2004) (limitations on admitting other-act evidence when court lacks victims’ testimony to assess credibility)
- State v. LeBrun, 222 Ariz. 183 (App. 2009) (audio/video victim statements can support clear-and-convincing finding for other-act admission)
- State v. Salazar, 181 Ariz. 87 (App. 1994) (other-act evidence may be limited to its probative core to avoid undue prejudice)
- State v. Schackart, 153 Ariz. 422 (App. 1987) (other acts involving the same victim admissible to explain victim’s state of mind and lack of consent)
- State v. Villalobos, 225 Ariz. 74 (App. 2010) (limiting jury instruction can mitigate prejudice from other-act evidence)