State v. McDowell, 1 CA-CR 15-0669

Background

In late 2011 McDowell, Jasso, Shine, and McIntyre lived together; after a disputed laptop-for-marijuana exchange they plotted to take retribution against the buyer (the victim).
Jasso arranged a meeting with the victim on October 22, 2011; Jasso and McDowell met the victim in his car and McDowell shot him; the victim later died.
Police traced calls on the victim’s phone to Jasso’s family; Jasso ultimately pled guilty and gave a factual basis that he, McDowell, Shine, and McIntyre conspired to lure and kill the victim; Jasso later testified at trial implicating McDowell as the shooter.
McDowell admitted shooting the victim but claimed the killing was a non‑premeditated “snap” decision; he was charged with first‑degree murder and armed robbery.
The jury convicted McDowell of premeditated and felony murder and armed robbery; two aggravators were found and McDowell received natural life without release for murder (concurrent 10.5 years for robbery).
On appeal McDowell challenged (1) alleged Brady nondisclosure/impeachment material, (2) alleged Rule 15 disclosure violation and need for sanctions (striking testimony), and (3) alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	McDowell's Argument	Held
Whether nondisclosure of impeachment material from Jasso required a mistrial under Brady	Any impeachment/new material was presented to jury at trial and defense had opportunity to cross‑examine; no Brady violation	The prosecutor failed to timely disclose impeachment material about Jasso’s changed story, warranting mistrial	Denied: no Brady violation because the undisclosed matters were presented at trial and thoroughly explored on cross‑examination
Whether the State’s disclosures (including plea factual basis) sufficiently complied with Rule 15 and whether untimely supplementation required striking Jasso’s testimony	The plea factual basis and earlier statements conveyed the substance that the defendants conspired to kill; any minor new details were harmless and defense was given time to prepare	Trial testimony contained new, more detailed assertions inconsistent with prior statements and factual basis; failure to supplement required sanction (strike testimony)	Denied: substance of trial testimony was disclosed (factual basis and police statements); any untimely disclosure was harmless or cured by giving defense time to interview and prepare
Whether prosecutor’s closing comments ("smoke and mirrors/red herrings") amounted to prosecutorial misconduct requiring mistrial	Comments criticized defense tactics and were permissible argument, not personal attacks on counsel; did not render trial fundamentally unfair	Comments implied defense counsel was deceitful and thus prejudiced defendant, meriting mistrial	Denied: remarks were acceptable critique of defense theory/tactics and did not infect trial with unfairness

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable and material to guilt or punishment)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecution must disclose evidence affecting witness credibility)
State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (2006) (review of discovery/sanction rulings for abuse of discretion; purpose of disclosure rules to avoid surprise)
State v. Guerrero, 119 Ariz. 273 (1978) (discovery rules do not require word‑for‑word preview of witness testimony)
State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72 (1998) (improper for prosecutor to impugn opposing counsel’s integrity in argument)