State v. Greenberg
236 Ariz. 592
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Greenberg was suspected of August 27, 2009 trespass and peering/recording near a juvenile; vehicle linked to suspect.
- He accompanied officers to the station after initial questioning; Miranda rights were read and waived.
- A second interview occurred the next day; Greenberg confessed to the trespass and later admitted to possessing related child pornography.
- Investigators obtained a warrant after reviewing prior NAU library incidents and a Hemlock Way recording; evidence seized included CDs, DVDs, and a handheld camera.
- A second round of charges followed; Greenberg was eventually convicted on multiple counts and sentenced to 340 years consecutive.
- The trial court suppressed the August 27 confession and the evidence from the search warrant in the first proceeding; on remand, the court admitted both confessions in the subsequent prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the August 27 confession and August 31 confession voluntary? | Greenberg argues both confessions were involuntary due to custodial interrogation and implied promises. | Greenberg contends coercive police tactics and implied promises tainted the confessions. | Both confessions deemed voluntary; no reversible error in admitting. |
| Was the August 31 confession admissible independent of the August 27 confession? | State contends August 31 confession derived from lawful search, dissipation of any taint. | Greenberg contends taint from August 27 taint earlier confession. | August 31 confession admitted; taint analysis resolved in favor of admissibility. |
| May the second prosecution relitigate the August 27 confession admissibility under law of the case/Rule 16.1(d)? | State contends law of the case/Rule 16.1(d) allow revisiting admissibility in the second case. | Greenberg argues prohibitions against relitigation and double jeopardy principles apply. | Rule 16.1(d) and law of the case do not preclude reexamination; not the same case and not final judgment for collateral estoppel. |
| Does collateral estoppel bar relitigating the August 27 confession issue? | State asserts collateral estoppel applies due to prior suppression ruling. | Greenberg argues prior ruling was final and binding. | Collateral estoppel does not apply; suppression was interlocutory and there was no final judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (Ariz. 2006) (establishes standard for admissibility under police promises)
- Blakley, 204 Ariz. 429 (Ariz. 2003) (police interrogation tactics; limits on coercive promises)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (clarifies voluntariness despite later understanding of consequences)
- State v. Whelan, 208 Ariz. 168 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004) (law of the case and Rule 16.1(d) applicability in successive prosecutions)
- Jimenez, 130 Ariz. 138 (Ariz. 1981) (collateral estoppel elements in criminal cases)
- Nunez, 167 Ariz. 272 (Ariz. 1991) (requires a final judgment for collateral estoppel; dismissal without prejudice not enough)