278 P.3d 324
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- Gonzalez was passenger in a vehicle stopped on I-17 for a roadside investigation; Pinzon was the driver.
- The officer observed windshield tampering, fresh glue and spray paint, and a dirty interior suggesting concealment.
- The dog alerted to the front fender well; the windshield was removed to access a void containing three containers of methamphetamine.
- A screwdriver with fresh glue and latex gloves were found, linking concealment methods to the windshield area.
- Gonzalez and Pinzon were searched with consent; they were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia and transport for sale of dangerous drugs; Gonzalez was convicted of the latter and sentenced to five years.
- The trial court admitted expert testimony on the modus operandi of drug trafficking organizations; Gonzalez appealed arguing improper MO evidence and mischaracterization as drug courier profile evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MO evidence admissible to prove knowledge | Gonzalez argues Manera’s testimony was improper drug courier profile evidence. | Gonzalez contends the evidence should be inadmissible as substantive guilt evidence. | MO evidence admissible to explain organization conduct, not to prove guilt by profile. |
| Whether admission of MO testimony violated trial rules due to lack of objection | Gonzalez contends lack of trial objection bars ordinary review. | Gonzalez concedes but argues fundamental error on admissibility. | Court applies fundamental error review; MO testimony upheld upon proper scope and foundation. |
| Whether Manera’s testimony improperly implied Gonzalez’s state of mind | Testimony was framed to show organizational behavior, not Gonzalez’s knowledge. | testimony limited to MO of organizations, not defendant’s knowledge. | Testimony limited to general MO, not direct inference of Gonzalez’s knowledge. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lee, 191 Ariz. 542 (1998) (drug courier profile inadmissible as substantive guilt evidence but relevant to stop/suppression (context))
- Cordoba v. United States, 104 F.3d 225 (9th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes MO from profile; admissible to explain MO)
- Murillo v. United States, 255 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2001) (MO evidence admissible to show knowledge, not state of mind)
- Sepulveda-Barraza v. United States, 645 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011) (MO evidence not limited to complex cases; admissible in non-complex drug courier cases)
- State v. Salazar, 27 Ariz.App. 620 (1976) (recognizes MO context in drug trafficking expert testimony)