State v. Jernigan, 1 CA-CR 15-0171

Background

Defendant (Larry Jernigan) forced entry into victims’ home, demanded a gun, struck both victims with a jack handle, and stole a phone, two purses, and money. He claimed he went to retrieve a backpack and acted in self‑defense.
Charges: two counts aggravated assault, two counts armed robbery (one dismissed mid‑trial), two counts kidnapping (acquitted), and first‑degree burglary; weapons count severed pretrial.
Parties stipulated that, shortly before the incident, Defendant had an altercation with “Son” over a handgun; the stipulation was read to the jury and relied on by both sides.
Defendant’s statements to a detective were admitted and used at trial; he did not move to suppress or request a voluntariness hearing.
Photographic lineup was discussed in pretrial disclosure arguments, but the court excluded the physical lineup and the victims made in‑court identifications without timely objection. A probation officer volunteered that Defendant had been jailed for a probation violation during aggravation testimony; the court struck the statement and denied a mistrial.
Jury convicted on robbery, first‑degree burglary, and two aggravated assaults; aggregate sentence eleven years. Defendant appealed raising multiple evidentiary and procedural claims; the court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence (victim testimony, injuries, stolen items, circumstances) supports convictions; credibility was for jury	Victim testimony inconsistent and medically unsupported; thus evidence insufficient	Affirmed: evidence sufficient; credibility is jury’s province (no reversible error)
Admission of prior altercation (stipulation)	Parties stipulated to prior altercation; Defendant agreed and relied on it	Admission was erroneous and prejudicial	Waived/invited error: Defendant stipulated and used the evidence; appellate review barred
Failure to hold voluntariness hearing sua sponte	No suppression motion/objection was made; court not required to hold hearing absent a timely objection	Court had duty under Emery/A.R.S. §13‑3988 to hold voluntariness hearing even without request	No error: defendant must timely raise voluntariness; court not required to hold sua sponte hearing
Photographic lineup and in‑court ID	Identity was not contested at trial; lineup excluded from evidence; in‑court IDs unchallenged	Lineup was unduly suggestive and tainted in‑court IDs; trial court should have given cautionary instruction	No reversible error: lineup not in record, in‑court IDs unchallenged so presumed reliable, no cautionary instruction needed
Denial of mistrial for alleged prosecutorial misconduct (probation officer comment)	Comment was volunteered by witness, not elicited by prosecutor; court struck it and instructed jury to disregard	Comment referenced jail/probation violation and prejudiced Defendant; mistrial required	No abuse of discretion: no misconduct, curative instruction given, jury already convicted and later disregarded the statement

Key Cases Cited

State v. Soto‑Fong, 187 Ariz. 186 (1996) (standard for sufficiency review; credibility for jury)
State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514 (2007) (defendant who affirmatively approves admissibility waives appeal on that issue)
State v. Finn, 111 Ariz. 271 (1974) (court not required to hold voluntariness hearing sua sponte absent defendant’s request)
State v. Emery, 131 Ariz. 493 (1982) (discusses voluntariness presumption and confession procedures)
State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380 (1969) (unchallenged in‑court identification presumed not tainted by pretrial procedures)
State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9 (1995) (standard for reversing denial of mistrial—abuse of discretion)