State v. King
226 Ariz. 253
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- King was convicted by jury of negligent homicide, a dangerous-nature offense, and sentenced to an enhanced, mitigated four-year term.
- The state alleged the assault by King and his brother caused Steve G.’s death from blunt force trauma after a confrontation with panhandling homeless men.
- Evidence included in-court testimony and a videotaped demonstration where a witness depicted the force of a kick using a chair.
- A jury found the offense to be of a dangerous nature.
- The court admitted the demonstrations over objections and later vacated the dangerous-nature finding and remanded for resentencing.
- The opinion analyzes (1) admission of court and videotaped demonstrations, (2) accomplice liability instructions, and (3) the dangerous-nature allegation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the courtroom and videotaped demonstrations were properly admissible | King contends insufficient foundation and hearsay issues | State argues demonstrations were probative demonstrative evidence | Demonstrations admitted; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the trial court erred in instructing on accomplice liability | King argues lack of intent to facilitate serious injury or death | State asserts accomplice liability valid under §13-301/303 | Accomplice liability instruction upheld; evidence supported aiding in the same attack |
| Whether the dangerous-nature allegation was properly pursued and proven | King argues tennis shoe cannot be dangerous instrument per Gordon | State contends shoes can be dangerous depending on use | Error to instruct on dangerous nature; vacate sentence and remand for proceedings consistent with decision |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dann, 220 Ariz. 351 (2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings; foundational analysis)
- State v. Luzanilla, 176 Ariz. 397 (App. 1993) (relevance and probative value of demonstrative evidence)
- State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389 (App. 1981) (demonstrative evidence admissibility where not replication but illustration)
- Volz v. Coleman Co., 155 Ariz. 563 (App. 1986) (demonstrations fair illustration of disputed trait or characteristic)
- State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228 (App. 2004) (fact-finder weighs evidence; jury determines accuracy of demonstrations)
- State v. Nelson, 214 Ariz. 196 (App. 2007) (accomplice liability for negligent homicide; aiding or facilitating offense suffices)
- Gordon v. State, 161 Ariz. 308 (1991) (body parts as dangerous instruments; de novo review; fists barred as per logic of dangerousness)
- Schaffer, 202 Ariz. 592 (App. 2002) (framework for when objects not inherently dangerous become dangerous instruments)