State v. Russell, 1 CA-CR 16-0063

Background

On Feb. 12, 2015, Eric Russell stabbed D.T. multiple times during an altercation; a bystander, B.C., intervened, beat and disarmed Russell, and took unconscious D.T. to the hospital.
Russell was charged with attempted first-degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault; one count was dismissed before trial.
At trial Russell testified self‑defense; the jury acquitted him of attempted murder but convicted him of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault causing serious physical injury.
During trial the prosecutor procured judicial immunity for state witness B.C. after B.C. expressed concern about self‑incrimination and then asked B.C. on the record whether he understood the immunity and would testify truthfully.
On appeal Russell argued pervasive prosecutorial misconduct: improper vouching for B.C. (including announcing immunity to the jury), misstating testimony in closing (attributing a “bleed out” comment to Russell), and referencing medical records not admitted into evidence.
The trial court sentenced Russell to concurrent aggravated 18‑year terms; the appellate court reviewed the alleged misconduct for fundamental error and harmlessness and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor announced/used B.C.’s immunity before jury	State: immunity was proper and did not place government prestige behind B.C.; questions were to secure truthful testimony	Russell: announcing immunity vouched for B.C. and improperly bolstered credibility	Court: No (no fundamental error); asking about immunity before jury did not amount to improper vouching
Prosecutor vouched for B.C. in closing by asserting B.C. acted in self‑defense	State: argument was a reasonable inference from the evidence and proper rebuttal	Russell: prosecutor impermissibly vouched and endorsed B.C.’s testimony	Court: Argument that B.C. acted in defense was tied to evidence and was proper
Prosecutor claimed entire prosecutor’s office believed B.C. credible because they didn’t charge him	State: (implicit) remark made to emphasize credibility	Russell: statement improperly placed office prestige behind witness	Court: Statement was improper but not reversible; harmless error
Mischaracterization of evidence ("bleed out" statement) and reference to medical records not in evidence	State: closing rhetoric; later told jury to disregard any inaccurate statements	Russell: prosecutor misstated testimony and referenced inadmissible records to bolster witness and undermine defendant	Court: Misstatements were improper but defense replied and court instructed jury that arguments are not evidence; errors were harmless; convictions affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290 (discusses test for improper prosecutorial remarks and their effect on jurors)
State v. Vincent, 159 Ariz. 418 (describes two forms of impermissible prosecutor vouching)
State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 (explains standard for reversal due to prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72 (due process standard for prosecutorial misconduct claims)
State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327 (harmless-error/prosecutorial-misconduct analysis)
State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152 (counsel allowed wide latitude in closing; reasonable inferences permitted)
State v. Alvarez, 145 Ariz. 370 (prosecutorial comments that rebut defense are proper)
State v. Corona, 188 Ariz. 85 (linking argument to evidence avoids vouching error)
State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484 (jury instructions can render prosecutorial vouching harmless)
State v. Medina, 232 Ariz. 391 (standard for reviewing unpreserved error—fundamental error)

Outcome

The court affirmed Russell’s convictions and sentences, concluding that although some prosecutorial remarks were improper, they did not so infect the trial as to deny due process and were harmless in light of defense rebuttal and jury instructions.