311 P.3d 1105
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Salamanca, driving at about twice the speed limit on Route 66, lost control of his SUV, crossed into oncoming traffic, and caused a collision that killed the other driver.
- Breath and blood tests showed Salamanca’s BAC was more than twice the legal limit.
- A cell phone in his vehicle sent two profane texts to his girlfriend shortly before a 9-1-1 call: one 2 minutes 15 seconds before the call and another 59 seconds before.
- Salamanca was charged with second-degree murder (and related counts including manslaughter, DUI, leaving the scene). The jury convicted him of manslaughter and related offenses; he was sentenced to 22.5 years.
- The trial court admitted both text messages (one as intrinsic evidence and the other under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b)) and admitted a jury-read statement summarizing basic driver-safety warnings about alcohol and speeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Salamanca) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the text sent 59 seconds before 9-1-1 | Text is intrinsic because it was contemporaneous and could have caused the crash | Text is other-act evidence and should be excluded under Rule 404(b) | Admitted as intrinsic: sending/handling the phone so close in time could have directly facilitated the collision |
| Admissibility of the text sent 2 minutes 15 seconds before 9-1-1 | Text is intrinsic / probative of distraction and anger | Not intrinsic; should be excluded under Rule 404(b) or as irrelevant | Admitted under Rule 404(b) as evidence of state of mind (angry/distracted); no limiting instruction needed and no prejudice shown |
| Profanity in texts (Rule 403) | Probative of anger and state of mind; not unfairly prejudicial | Profanity is unduly prejudicial and inflammatory | Admitted: probative value of showing anger/distracted state outweighs unfair prejudice |
| Driver-safety test material read to jury | Relevant to show defendant’s knowledge of risks (speeding, alcohol) bearing on mens rea | Improper character evidence implying propensity or special expertise; misleading | Admitted: statement did not reference driving school or prior record and was relevant to knowledge of risks and mental state |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ferrero, 229 Ariz. 239 (intrinsic-act doctrine: evidence contemporaneous with and directly facilitating charged act is admissible without Rule 404(b))
- State v. Prion, 203 Ariz. 157 (Rule 404(b) requires clear and convincing proof that the other act occurred and was committed by defendant)
- State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40 (standard of review for admissibility: abuse of discretion)
- State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485 (profane statements by defendant may be admissible; profanity alone does not mandate exclusion under Rule 403)
- State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561 (evidence of prior knowledge or prior DUI admissible to prove mental state showing reckless indifference)