State v. Gray
258 P.3d 242
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Gray was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated domestic violence, tampering with a witness, and influencing a witness; he had two historical felony priors and received enhanced, presumptive, concurrent sentences; on Anders review, court identified a potentially fundamental issue about proof of tampering under §13-2804; the State alleged Gray induced Denise J. to withhold testimony via June 22 letter and to testify falsely via July 28 letter; Denise testified about May 2009 abuse and the letters; the State conceded Denise did not alter her conduct as a result of Gray’s conduct; the court concluded tampering requires proof that a witness or one believed to be a witness was induced to unlawfully withhold testimony, testify falsely, or fail to appear; court vacated the tampering conviction and remanded for resentencing on the lesser-included offense of attempted tampering with a witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §13-2804 requires actual causation for tampering | State argues inducement is complete upon influencing, regardless of outcome | Gray argues no causation, only attempted inducement is punishable | Induce requires causation; must show actual or believed-to-be-called witness altered conduct due to inducement |
| Whether the conviction should be modified to a lesser offense | State contends full conviction supported | Gray agrees modification is appropriate if proof insufficient | Modify to attempted tampering with a witness; remand for resentencing on that offense |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ferraro, 67 Ariz. 397 (1948) (interpretation of witness-related statute, purposes of penalties)
- State v. Rowland, 12 Ariz.App. 437 (1970) (modification of judgment for proved lesser offense)
- State v. Cheramie, 218 Ariz. 447 (2008) (interpretation of statutory elements; presumption against adding elements)