State v. R.W.
1 CA-CR 15-0680
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Feb 2, 2017Background
- R.W. was indicted for one count of sale of methamphetamine (on or about Sept. 14, 2012) and two counts of misconduct involving weapons; the sale count was later amended to cover Sept. 12–14, 2012.
- Police found methamphetamine on Sept. 12 in the possession of J.W. and P.H. after stopping a vehicle that had left R.W.’s home; the State intended to link those Sept. 12 sales and a Sept. 14 sale to M.A. to Count 1.
- The trial court allowed evidence of the Sept. 12 transactions (excluding out-of-court statements from J.W. and P.H.) over defense objections that focused on prejudice and hearsay/confrontation issues; defense did not expressly raise duplicity at trial.
- R.W. testified denying the sales to J.W., P.H., and M.A., but admitted he may have told a detective he sold drugs (to appear cooperative or protect others); the State argued admissions supported all three sales.
- The jury convicted on all counts; R.W. appealed arguing the State’s use of evidence of three separate sales to prove one count produced a duplicitous charge and violated the right to a unanimous jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether presenting evidence of three separate sales to prove one sale count created a duplicitous charge violating unanimity | State: Evidence of the Sept. 12 and Sept. 14 sales were admissible to prove the charged offense and were not "other acts"; trial court properly limited hearsay | R.W.: Introduction of multiple sales supporting a single count made the indictment duplicitous and risked a non-unanimous verdict | The court found the presentation created a duplicitous charge but reviewed for fundamental error because duplicity wasn’t objected to at trial; no reversible error because defendant raised the same defense to all incidents and suffered no prejudice |
| Whether R.W. preserved a duplicity objection for appeal | State: R.W. failed to raise duplicity at trial and thus cannot obtain ordinary appellate review | R.W.: Argued trial argument over admission of Sept. 12 evidence was sufficient to alert court to duplicity concern | Court held R.W. did not preserve a duplicity objection (unlike Petrak) and thus review is for fundamental, prejudicial error |
| Whether duplicitous charge automatically requires reversal | State: No automatic reversal if no prejudice; the decisive question is whether the defendant was prejudiced | R.W.: Duplicitous charge violated constitutional unanimity right requiring reversal | Court held duplication is fundamental error in theory, but reversal requires showing of prejudice; none shown here because R.W.’s single defense applied to all incidents and jury resolved credibility in State’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petrak, 198 Ariz. 260 (App. 2000) (defense comments preserved duplicity-like due process claim where trial judge was put on notice)
- State v. Klokic, 219 Ariz. 241 (App. 2008) (distinguishing duplicitous indictments and explaining prejudicial risk of non-unanimous verdicts)
- State v. Davis, 206 Ariz. 377 (2003) (holding unanimity right and identifying duplicitous charges as threatening non-unanimous verdicts)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental error standard and prejudice inquiry)
- State v. Schroeder, 167 Ariz. 47 (App. 1990) (no prejudice from duplicitous charge where defendant denied all acts and case came down to witness credibility)