State v. MacIas, 1 CA-CR 15-0505

Background

Gabriel Macias, a former elementary teacher, was charged with multiple sexual offenses based on victim testimony alleging molestation and that he showed them pornographic material during 2003–2006; police searched his home in 2013 and seized pornographic materials, computer files, and phone videos.
Evidence seized included adult pornographic magazines and videos, computer files (including videos involving a victim E.V.), and iPhone/iPod videos/texts; Macias granted police access to his phone after arrest.
A jury convicted Macias on 17 counts (including sexual conduct with a minor, child molestation, furnishing harmful items to minors, sexual exploitation, and aggravated assault with sexual motivation); he received lengthy aggregate sentences.
On appeal Macias challenged the denial of his suppression motion (warrant staleness), several evidentiary rulings (adult pornography, a college paper, other-act testimony), jury instructions on “without consent,” duplicity of certain counts, prosecutorial vouching, and sufficiency of evidence on several counts.
The court affirmed most convictions, reversed Count Five (one furnishing-harmful-items conviction), and vacated the convictions/sentences on Counts Two and Three (sexual assault and sexual abuse) because of a jury-instruction error; remaining 14 convictions affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Macias)	Held
Validity of search warrant (staleness)	Warrant valid; evidence seized relevant to investigated offenses and officers relied in good faith.	Affidavit relied on facts from 2003–2006; information was stale for a 2013 search so seizure should be suppressed.	Warrant was based on stale information but officers reasonably relied on it; suppression denied under Leon good-faith exception.
Jury instruction on “without consent” for sexual assault/abuse	Instruction was proper.	Trial court erred by instructing jurors that being under 18 equals lack of consent.	Error conceded by State; convictions for sexual assault and sexual abuse vacated; instruction was erroneous and not harmless.
Duplicity of furnishing-harmful-items counts	Indictment/charges were adequate; continuing course of conduct may be alleged in single count.	Counts duplicitous because State introduced evidence of multiple items/occasions per count, risking non‑unanimous verdict and inadequate notice.	No reversible error: indictment not duplicitous on its face; defendant’s global denial meant no prejudice shown.
Prosecutorial vouching in closing	Argument relied on admitted evidence and permissible inferences.	Prosecutor impermissibly vouched by invoking evidence outside record to bolster victims.	No improper vouching; prosecutor argued inferences from admitted evidence.
Admission of adult pornography and related titles	Evidence corroborated victims and showed means/opportunity; probative value outweighed prejudice.	Evidence irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and improper other-act propensity evidence.	Magazines/videos admission erroneous on some points but error harmless given overwhelming testimonial evidence; reading of titles was invited by defense and not reversible.
Admission of college paper (404(c)) and uncharged acts	Paper and other-act testimony relevant to aberrant sexual propensity and admissible with proper 404(c) findings and limiting instruction.	Paper did not show aberrant sexual propensity; admission prejudicial under Rule 404(c); hearsay objection to instructor comments.	Paper admission was error but harmless given other evidence; uncharged-act testimony satisfied 404(c) requirements and limiting instruction mitigated prejudice; instructor comments not shown to be used for truth.
Sufficiency of evidence for furnishing harmful items counts	Victim testimony that Macias showed pornography (and four described intercourse) sufficed for prurient/harmful-to-minors determination.	Some victims’ testimony lacked detail; one count (Count Five) lacked sufficient proof that material was prurient; internet-transmission issue for images.	Conviction for Count Five reversed for insufficient evidence; Count Nineteen upheld because defendant failed to prove statutory exception (internet transmission) applied; aggravated assault conviction supported.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424 (discussing standard of review on suppression) (Arizona Supreme Court opinion cited for suppression standard)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-circumstances probable cause standard) (Supreme Court case establishing fair-probability test)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule) (Supreme Court case allowing reliance on warrants later found invalid)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (entitlement to hearing when affidavit contains intentionally false statements) (Supreme Court precedent on attacking warrant affidavits)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applied to states) (landmark Fourth Amendment case)
State v. Getz, 189 Ariz. 561 (jury instruction on consent cannot be equated to age alone) (Arizona precedent rejecting age-as-consent instruction)
United States v. Hodson, 543 F.3d 286 (warrant scope must match probable cause; unreasonable to search computers for child pornography based solely on suspicion of molestation) (Sixth Circuit decision distinguishing matching of search scope and probable cause)
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (standards for prosecutorial vouching and other evidentiary principles) (Arizona authority on improper vouching and closing-argument limits)
State v. Crum, 150 Ariz. 244 (possession of pornographic material admissible when connected to commission of charged crime) (Arizona case on relevance of pornographic material)
State v. Vega, 228 Ariz. 24 (Rule 404(c) findings and harmless-error analysis) (Arizona appellate guidance on other-act evidence admission)