State v. Quiroz, 1 CA-CR 17-0071

Background

Victim reported a residential burglary; next day found a bandage on a blanket from which DNA matched Thomas Quiroz. Quiroz did not know the victim and had no claimed reason to be in the home.
Quiroz was charged with second-degree burglary (entering a residence with intent to commit theft or felony).
The State moved in limine to bar any reference to a prior burglary at the same residence (about 12 years earlier) and to a firearm the victim had thought stolen but later found. The court granted the motion as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
At trial the prosecutor repeatedly characterized defense theories (e.g., accidental transfer of the bandage) as "silly, stupid, ridiculous" and called the burglary "dangerous" and "creepy." Quiroz objected to some remarks; many were unobjected-to.
Jury convicted Quiroz; he was sentenced to a presumptive 13.25-year term and appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct in closing/rebuttal and erroneous exclusion of the prior-burglary/firearm evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct (unobjected-to comments)	State: closing/rebuttal remarks did not deny fair trial; comments were legitimate argument.	Quiroz: comments appealed to passions, impugned counsel, and could have affected verdict (fundamental error).	Court: No fundamental error; jury instructions and record show no reasonable likelihood comments affected verdict; disapproved tone but affirmed.
Prosecutorial misconduct (objected-to rebuttal)	State: rebuttal was proper response to defense themes; defendant has no burden.	Quiroz: rebuttal disparaged defense and counsel, prejudicing jury (harmless error review).	Court: Overruled objection was not reversible; comments did not rise to prosecutorial misconduct causing likelihood of different verdict.
Exclusion of prior burglary/firearm evidence	State: evidence irrelevant to whether Quiroz unlawfully entered with intent; prejudicial and confusing (Rule 401/403).	Quiroz: prior burglary/firearm relevant to timeline, victim's knowledge of home contents, and impeachment of victim's credibility; necessary for cross-examination.	Court: No abuse of discretion. Evidence had minimal probative value given 12-year lapse and other available evidence, and was properly excluded under Rules 401/403; Confrontation/completeness not violated.
Cumulative error	—	Quiroz: cumulative improper comments and exclusion of evidence so infected trial it denied due process.	Court: No cumulative effect amounting to denial of due process; conviction affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 (review standards for prosecutorial misconduct and fundamental error)
State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz. 560 (harmless-error standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. 254 (cumulative-misconduct analysis)
State v. Ramos, 235 Ariz. 230 (improper to impugn opposing counsel in jury argument)
State v. Rose, 231 Ariz. 500 (trial court’s Rule 403 balancing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Gibson, 202 Ariz. 321 (other evidence of equal probative value reduces need to admit risky evidence)
State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433 (irrelevant cross-examination may be excluded)
State v. Foshay, 239 Ariz. 271 (right to present evidence concerned with issues or credibility)
State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72 (standard for reversal based on cumulative misconduct)
State v. Bocharski, 218 Ariz. 476 (no cumulative effect absent underlying misconduct)