State v. Stoneham, 1 CA-CR 16-0296

Background

Stoneham left his 8‑year‑old son on a center median and ran across three lanes; the boy chased him and was struck by a car mirror, suffering abrasions and requiring ambulance transport.
At the scene and hospital, officers and Stoneham observed signs of intoxication; Stoneham admitted drinking a large amount of vodka and said he was teaching his son to look before crossing.
A jury convicted Stoneham of negligent child abuse (Class 4 felony) as a lesser‑included of reckless child abuse and found it a domestic violence offense; court imposed one year of supervised probation.
During trial, defense requested mistrial/individual juror voir dire after counsel reported overhearing bench conferences; court denied motions after instructing jurors and directly asking whether any juror had understood bench‑conference comments (none did).
The court admitted a witness’s prior testimony from a mistried first trial after finding the witness unavailable due to serious medical illness and that defense had prior opportunity to cross‑examine.
Stoneham also contended prosecutorial misconduct in closing (facts not in evidence, vouching, and impugning defense counsel); the court rejected these claims as not prejudicial in context.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stoneham)	Held
Denial of mistrial / failure to individually voir dire after bench conferences	Court’s instructions and jurors’ silence cured any risk; no prejudice shown	Jurors may have overheard bench conferences discussing inadmissible BAC evidence; mistrial or individual voir dire required	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; record shows jurors did not report understanding bench comments and instructions were given
Admission of prior testimony of unavailable witness	Witness was unavailable due to serious medical condition; prior testimony admissible because defendant had prior cross‑examination opportunity	Witness not sufficiently unavailable; admission violated Confrontation and due‑process rights and prevented effective impeachment	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion finding unavailability and prior cross‑examination adequate; factors weighed against delay
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (facts not in evidence, vouching)	Arguments were reasonable inferences or were addressed by objections and jury instructions	Prosecutor misstated evidence, vouched for witnesses, and impugned defense counsel’s integrity	Affirmed: comments within permissible latitude or cured by sustaining objections and instructions; no prejudicial misconduct shown
Cumulative‑error/due process claim	Individual errors harmless; cumulative effect not prejudicial	Combined errors so infected trial that conviction must be reversed	Affirmed: defendant failed to show intent/indifference and prejudice required for reversal on cumulative error grounds

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290 (discretionary review of mistrial rulings)
State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 (mistrial is drastic remedy; standard for granting)
State v. Bailey, 160 Ariz. 277 (consider whether remarks call attention to matters jurors should not consider)
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (presumption that jurors follow instructions)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause: testimonial statements admissible only if witness unavailable and prior cross‑examination occurred)
State v. Montaño, 204 Ariz. 413 (review of witness unavailability is for abuse of discretion; reasonableness of efforts to secure witness)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for cross‑examination, not guaranteed effectiveness)
State v. Lehr, 227 Ariz. 140 (strategic choices in prior cross‑examination do not deprive defendant of confrontation)
State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268 (two forms of impermissible prosecutorial vouching)
State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz. 560 (standard for reversal based on cumulative prosecutorial misconduct)