State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa
239 Ariz. 415
| Ariz. | 2016Background
- At a house party a fight between Alejandra Moran and L.U. culminated in L.U.’s stabbing and death.
- Hector Ponce recorded an approximately five-minute cellphone video, cropped it to a 31-second excerpt, sent that excerpt to Bassam Mahfouz, then deleted the full recording from his phone.
- Police recovered only the 31-second excerpt from Mahfouz’s phone; the State charged Moran with first-degree murder and sought to admit the excerpt at trial.
- Moran moved to exclude the excerpt under Ariz. R. Evid. 106, 1002, 801, and 901; the trial court granted the motion and the court of appeals affirmed in part.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review, held the trial court erred in excluding the excerpt on those rules, vacated the lower rulings, and remanded for the trial court to assess admissibility under Rule 403.
Issues
| Issue | Moran's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ariz. R. Evid. 106 (rule of completeness) required exclusion of the 31‑second excerpt because the remainder of the recording was deleted | The deleted portion is necessary to qualify, explain, or place the excerpt in context, so excerpt should be excluded | Rule 106 is a rule of inclusion permitting the adverse party to introduce omitted parts when available; it does not mandate exclusion where omitted portions no longer exist and the State did not cause deletion | Reversed: Rule 106 does not justify exclusion here; it is inapplicable because the State did not control or destroy the recording and no additional portions remain to admit |
| Whether Ariz. R. Evid. 403 (unfair prejudice vs. probative value) warranted exclusion | Admission would prejudice Moran because excerpt omits events leading to the altercation and could mislead the jury | Probative value is high; prejudice may be mitigated by witness testimony contextualizing the excerpt and jury instructions | Remanded: Court should assess Rule 403 in first instance at trial because balancing is context‑dependent and requires consideration of other evidence |
| Whether Ariz. R. Evid. 1002 (best evidence) required production of the original five‑minute video | The original recording must be produced to prove the event; the excerpt is inadmissible without the full original | The excerpt will be used to illustrate witnesses’ testimony, not to prove the content of a separate writing; Rule 1002 is inapplicable | Reversed: Best evidence rule does not bar admission because the excerpt illustrates witnesses’ observations rather than substitutes for proving the original’s contents |
| Whether the excerpt is inadmissible under hearsay (Ariz. R. Evid. 801) or fails authentication (Ariz. R. Evid. 901) | The video contains multiple layers of hearsay and lacks chain‑of‑custody/authentication | The physical conduct in the video is non‑assertive (not hearsay); verbal utterances qualify as excited utterances or present sense impressions; witnesses can authenticate the excerpt even without continuous chain of custody | Reversed: Hearsay rule does not bar the recording; excited utterance/present sense impression exceptions and muting can address spoken words; authentication can be satisfied by witness testimony that the recording fairly and accurately depicts events |
Key Cases Cited
- Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (rule of completeness secures full understanding of an utterance)
- Brewer v. Jeep Corp., 724 F.2d 653 (application of rule of completeness to film recordings)
- State v. Prasertphong, 210 Ariz. 496 (court of appeals decision discussing context needed for partial recordings)
- State v. Haight-Gyuro, 218 Ariz. 356 (video admissibility standard: fairly and accurately depicts what it purports to show)
- State v. Leteve, 237 Ariz. 516 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)