State v. Rivera, 247 P.3d 560

Rivera was convicted after a second trial of second-degree murder, drive-by shooting, discharging a firearm at a residential structure, and five counts of endangerment; he received a composite sentence totaling 58 years.
The shooting occurred as Rivera, after being asked to leave a party, fired six shots at the house, killing a person identified as R.L.
The indictment charged Rivera with shooting at a specific target, R.C., though the jury verdict on drive-by shooting referred to R.C. as the victim.
Rivera argues the evidence is insufficient for drive-by shooting and the endangerment counts, and he asserts his sentences for drive-by shooting and discharging at a structure are double punishment; he also challenges the unavailability finding for a state witness used at trial.
The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated Rivera’s drive-by shooting conviction and related sentence, affirming the remaining convictions and sentences.
The court applied a standard of reviewing substantial evidence and analyzed indictment versus verdict form and jury instructions in determining sufficiency of the drive-by shooting charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for drive-by shooting	Rivera lacking proof of targeting R.C.	Indictment permitted conviction for shooting at R.C. via statutory elements and instructions	Insufficient evidence; drive-by conviction vacated
Sufficiency of evidence for endangerment counts	Victims were in the house; bullets created substantial risk	Evidence insufficient to show substantial risk to each named victim	Sufficient evidence; endangerment convictions affirmed
Unavailability of witness and confrontation	State's efforts were insufficient; violated confrontation	State acted reasonably; good faith efforts	Court did not abuse discretion; witness deemed unavailable
Double punishment for drive-by shooting and discharging at a residential structure	Consecutive sentences for the two offenses may constitute double punishment	Consecutive sentences permissible if offenses distinct	Not reached due to vacatur of drive-by shooting conviction; double-punishment issue obviated

State v. Robles, 213 Ariz. 268 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006) (standard view of sufficiency on appeal)
State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410 (Ariz. 2005) (substantial evidence standard)
State v. Freeney, 223 Ariz. 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009) (indictment amendment limits; distinct offenses)
State v. Rybolt, 133 Ariz. 276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982) (jury instructions cannot amend indictment when verdict conforms)
State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 534 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996) (automatic amendment to conform to evidence when no change in offense)
State v. Mokake, 171 Ariz. 179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991) (good-faith efforts for international witnesses; formal procedures not strictly required)
State v. Medina, 178 Ariz. 570 (Ariz. 1994) (necessity of formal procedures in some unavailability contexts)
State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413 (Ariz. 2003) (reasonable efforts to locate a witness; unavailability ruling review)
State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54 (Ariz. 2005) (endangerment sufficiency and factual considerations)
State v. Fimbres, 222 Ariz. 293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009) (distinct offenses when indictment elements differ)