State v. Henderson, 1 CA-CR 16-0467

Background

In July 2015 Henderson attempted to cash a $793.99 check at Wells Fargo; bank staff found the check inconsistent with the company’s prior checks and contacted the trucking company, which denied authorizing the check. Police were called.
Officers located Henderson in the teller line, escorted him to the police car, and found marijuana on his person during the investigation; Henderson asked for a lawyer after some questioning.
Henderson was charged with one count of forgery; at trial he absented himself after jury selection and was tried in his absence.
During the State’s case an officer testified that Henderson “seemed defeated” and had said he “messed up” and didn’t want to go to jail; the officer also testified about Henderson’s silent, compliant demeanor during arrest and gave an opinion that such behavior is typical of guilty persons.
The defense moved for mistrial multiple times after testimony referencing (1) Henderson’s alleged statement, (2) his quiet demeanor at arrest, and (3) that he invoked his Miranda rights; the court repeatedly denied mistrial but gave curative instructions to disregard certain testimony and explained jurors must not infer guilt from invocation of counsel.
The jury convicted Henderson of forgery with two aggravators; the superior court sentenced him to a presumptive 4.5-year term. Henderson appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying mistrial motions.

Issues

Issue	Henderson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether officer’s testimony that Henderson said he “messed up” required mistrial	The volunteered remark improperly suggested admission/guilt and was prejudicial; curative instruction insufficient	The remark could be cured by a specific jury instruction; trial court best positioned to judge prejudice	Curative instruction was sufficient; no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial
Whether officer’s description of Henderson’s silent, compliant demeanor at arrest violated Fifth Amendment or required mistrial	Silence/quiet demeanor was used as evidence of guilt in violation of Miranda/Doyle	The testimony described observable conduct, not a testimonial silence; video showed same conduct	No mistrial required; officer described conduct visible on bodycam, not impermissible silence evidence
Whether officer’s opinion that such behavior is “typical” of guilty persons required mistrial	Opinion improperly implied witness belief in defendant’s guilt and prejudiced jury	Opinion was general, non-specific; defense did not immediately request curative instruction or mistrial	No mistrial; officer’s general remark alone did not mandate mistrial and defense did not preserve objection fully
Whether mentioning that Henderson asked for a lawyer (invocation of Miranda) required mistrial	Mention of invocation drew impermissible attention to exercise of right to silence and was prejudicial	Court and parties minimized impact; court gave a specific instruction that invocation cannot be used to infer guilt	Court did not abuse discretion; gave curative instruction and juries presumed to follow instructions

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hardy, 230 Ariz. 281 (appellate review of mistrial denial standard)
State v. Herrera, 203 Ariz. 131 (mistrial as drastic remedy; appropriate only when fairness impossible)
State v. Lamar, 205 Ariz. 431 (framework for evaluating witness testimony that may improperly influence jury)
State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290 (deference to trial court’s determination of prejudice)
State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228 (standard for reversing denial of mistrial)
State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 (presumption that juries follow curative instructions)
State v. VanWinkle, 229 Ariz. 233 (use of defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt violates Fifth Amendment)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (prosecutorial use of defendant’s post-arrest silence may violate due process)
State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424 (witness belief about guilt does not automatically require mistrial)
State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484 (Arizona does not recognize cumulative error outside prosecutorial-misconduct context)