State v. Ketchner, 236 Ariz. 262

Background

Darrell Ketehner had a volatile, long-term relationship with Jennifer; she obtained multiple protective orders after threats and assaults.
On July 4, 2009, Ketehner entered Jennifer’s home, assaulted Jennifer and others; he stabbed and killed Ariel and shot Jennifer in the head; Jennifer survived with no memory of the attack.
Police later found Ketehner with Jennifer’s loaded gun and a bag of items; he pleaded guilty to a weapons offense and was indicted on seven counts including first‑degree murder and first‑degree burglary (felony murder predicate).
A jury convicted Ketehner of felony murder (not premeditated murder), attempted first‑degree murder, first‑degree burglary, and three counts of aggravated assault; the jury found aggravating circumstances and returned a death sentence for Ariel’s murder.
The State introduced expert testimony from Dr. Kathleen Ferraro about domestic‑violence “patterns,” including “separation assault” and lethality risk factors; Ketehner argued this was impermissible profile evidence.
The Arizona Supreme Court found the expert’s testimony was impermissible profile evidence that likely influenced the jury’s view of Ketehner’s intent to commit a felony on entry, requiring reversal of the felony‑murder and burglary convictions; other convictions were affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert "profile" evidence about domestic‑violence patterns	Testimony explained typical patterns and helped jurors understand the relationship — not offered to prove guilt by propensity	Testimony created an impermissible profile of abusers and invited conviction based on characteristics rather than acts	Court: Testimony about separation violence and lethality factors was inadmissible profile evidence; trial court erred in admitting it
Prejudice / Harmless‑error for felony‑murder and burglary convictions	Error was harmless; other evidence established intent/entry to commit felony	Error was prejudicial because it directly bore on intent to commit a felony on entry (key disputed issue)	Court: State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the error was harmless; reversed convictions and sentences for felony murder and first‑degree burglary
Harmless‑error as to non‑capital counts (aggravated assault, attempted murder)	Expert profile testimony did not pertain to those offenses; convictions supported by uncontested evidence	Same as State	Court: Error harmless as to three aggravated assaults and attempted first‑degree murder; convictions and sentences affirmed
Use of profile evidence more broadly in Arizona criminal cases	(State) Such evidence can inform jury about typical domestic‑violence behavior where helpful	(Defendant) Profile evidence risks convicting for matching characteristics and should be excluded as substantive proof of guilt	Court: Consistent with precedent, profile evidence cannot be used as substantive proof of guilt; limited contexts (e.g., factual background that aids understanding) may permit general behavioral testimony but not predictive batterer profiles

Key Cases Cited

State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539 (discussing standard of review for expert‑evidence admissibility)
State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1 (expert‑testimony review can include legal error)
State v. Lee, 191 Ariz. 542 (profile evidence should not be used as substantive proof of guilt)
Ryan v. State, 988 P.2d 46 (Wyo.) (domestic‑violence profile testimony held improper and prejudicial)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (harmless‑error standard for constitutional and evidentiary errors)
State v. Salazar‑Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590 (permitting expert testimony when it helps explain victim behavior to jurors)
State v. Vickers, 159 Ariz. 532 (requirement to give lesser‑included offense instructions when evidence supports them)