State v. Hoag
1 CA-CR 16-0208
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 18, 2017Background
- Victim, a student of Bullhead City Police Sgt. Jesse Hoag, met him for tutoring; they went for drinks the night of Oct. 2–3, 2014.
- In Hoag’s truck after drinking, the victim initially consented to intercourse, then withdrew consent; Hoag allegedly forcibly restrained and assaulted her (vaginal and oral) over about an hour.
- Victim reported the assault the same morning; medical exams showed a genital tear and later bruising consistent with forced penetration.
- Hoag was charged with two counts of sexual assault (vaginal intercourse and oral sexual contact); he claimed the encounter was consensual and presented testimony that some injuries could occur consensually.
- Jury convicted Hoag on both counts; court sentenced him to two consecutive seven-year presumptive terms. Defense counsel filed an Anders brief; Hoag’s retained counsel raised a supplemental argument on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hoag) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to compel phone records of victim and BCPD officer | Not required; records not shown to be within State control and defendant failed to show substantial need | Records could show close relationship between victim and officer, possibly influencing investigation; defendant established substantial need | Denied. Trial court did not abuse discretion; defendant’s request was speculative/fishing expedition and he failed to show undue hardship or substantial need |
| Sufficiency / fundamental error under Anders review | Evidence (victim testimony, medical findings, conduct, injuries) supports convictions beyond a reasonable doubt | Trial errors claimed were frivolous; defended as consensual encounter | No fundamental error. Convictions and sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (appointed counsel may file a brief asserting appeal is frivolous; court must review record for error)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (Ariz. 1969) (appellate procedure after Anders brief; court conducts exhaustive record search)
- State v. Tyler, 149 Ariz. 312 (Ariz. App. 1986) (trial court discretion governs discovery; defendant must show substantial need)
- State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court, 103 Ariz. 465 (Ariz. 1968) (trial judge must determine reasonableness of discovery requests and guard against fishing expeditions)
- State v. Hattan, 116 Ariz. 142 (Ariz. 1977) (mere conjecture insufficient to justify disclosure)