State v. Medina, 418 P.3d 1134

Background

In April 2016, police detained Porfirio Medina, a convicted felon and parole absconder, who told officers he had a handgun in his waistband.
Medina was charged and convicted for possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor and sentenced to an enhanced presumptive 10-year prison term.
Before trial, Medina disclosed a necessity defense late; the state moved to preclude the defense both for untimely disclosure and for insufficient evidentiary support.
The trial court precluded the necessity defense under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 as a sanction for untimely disclosure.
On appeal, Medina argued the preclusion was an abuse of discretion because (1) the late disclosure concerned a newly discovered defense disclosed at least seven days before trial, (2) the court failed to consider lesser sanctions or Smith/Tucker factors, and (3) the defense was factually supported.
The appellate court affirmed, concluding the record showed no evidence of imminent threat required for a necessity defense and therefore preclusion was proper on the alternate ground of lack of evidentiary support.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by precluding Medina's necessity defense as a sanction for late disclosure	State: Preclusion appropriate given untimely disclosure and lack of evidence supporting necessity	Medina: Disclosure was of a newly discovered defense given ≥7 days before trial; court failed to consider lesser sanctions and Smith/Tucker factors	Affirmed; trial court did not err to the extent preclusion was based on lack of evidentiary support; record lacked imminent-threat evidence required for necessity
Whether the necessity defense was legally supported by the evidence	State: Evidence did not show imminent threat required by A.R.S. § 13-417	Medina: Evidence (girlfriend's report, his statements) sufficed to let jury decide imminence	Held against Medina; evidence only suggested possible future harm, not the immediate/imminent threat statutorily required
Whether the court’s failure to analyze Smith/Tucker factors required reversal	Medina: Court failed to consider Smith factors before imposing preclusion sanction	State: Independent, alternative ground (insufficient evidence) supports preclusion	No reversible error because preclusion was supportable on the separate, correct legal ground of insufficient evidence
Whether lack of certification of good-faith efforts to resolve disclosure dispute deprived court of jurisdiction (structural error)	Medina: Failure to certify under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.7(a) deprived court of authority to consider preclusion, a structural error	State: Even if certification was required, it would not affect court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or its ability to preclude on evidentiary grounds	Denied; any procedural deficiency did not amount to structural error affecting jurisdiction and did not foreclose preclusion on evidentiary grounds

Key Cases Cited

State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 920 P.2d 290 (discussing deference to trial court’s choice of sanction)
State v. Smith, 123 Ariz. 243, 599 P.2d 199 (preclusion only as last resort; factors to consider before excluding witnesses or evidence)
State v. Tucker, 157 Ariz. 433, 759 P.2d 579 (endorsing Smith factors; preclusion only when lesser sanctions inadequate)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (Sixth Amendment not an absolute bar to excluding defense witnesses)
State v. Dominguez, 236 Ariz. 226, 338 P.3d 966 (imminence requirement for necessity defined)
State v. Boteo-Flores, 230 Ariz. 551, 288 P.3d 111 (trial court may be affirmed for any legally correct reason)