State v. Taylor, 1 CA-CR 16-0600

Background

On March 23, 2009, Taylor (a documented gang member) and three others followed a rival-occupied Caprice; Taylor fired a handgun from the front passenger seat while a backseat passenger (Arkeem C.) fired a rifle through the sunroof. Shots struck rival T.C./E.M., killed an unrelated bystander (G.L.), and damaged other vehicles.
Taylor evaded capture until November 21, 2013; he was charged with drive-by shooting, multiple aggravated assaults, assisting a criminal street gang, first-degree murder (later reduced by the jury to second-degree murder), and endangerment; multiple aggravating factors were found.
After a prosecutor’s on-the-record question in the first trial elicited testimony about America’s Most Wanted despite a pretrial exclusion, the court found the prosecutor negligently violated its order and declared a mistrial; Taylor moved to bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds.
At the second trial, a prospective juror (a jail minister) made ambiguous remarks suggesting possible familiarity with Taylor or defense counsel; the court excused that juror but not the entire panel; Taylor later objected on appeal that the panel was tainted.
The court also instructed the jury on lesser-included offenses (second-degree murder and manslaughter) over defense objection; the jury convicted Taylor of second-degree murder and the other charged offenses, and the superior court imposed aggravated, concurrent and consecutive terms totaling multiple decades.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy barred retrial after mistrial prompted by prosecutor’s question about America’s Most Wanted	State: mistrial was proper; retrial permissible because prosecutor’s conduct was negligent, not intentional	Taylor: prosecutor intentionally elicited forbidden evidence; retrial therefore barred under double jeopardy	Court: mistrial appropriate; prosecutor’s misconduct was negligent, not intentional, so double jeopardy did not bar retrial
Whether voir dire remarks by a prospective juror required striking the entire panel	State: striking the single juror cured any risk; no objective evidence of prejudice to panel	Taylor: ambiguous minister remarks could have influenced other jurors; entire panel should be struck	Court: no fundamental error; Taylor failed to show objective evidence of juror prejudice; excusing juror was sufficient
Whether second-degree murder instruction was warranted	State: evidence supported that Taylor either fired fatal shot or was an accomplice; reckless conduct in a busy area supported second-degree mens rea	Taylor: forensic evidence pointed to rifle (Arkeem C.) not Taylor; no evidence Taylor caused death or acted recklessly to support lesser instruction	Court: instruction proper—accomplice liability and ambiguous ballistic evidence permitted a reasonable juror to find Taylor caused death or acted recklessly
Whether jury instructions or other trial rulings warrant reversal	State: instructions legally supported and court did not abuse discretion	Taylor: trial court erred in instructing on lesser included offenses and in voir dire handling	Court: no abuse of discretion; convictions and sentences affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424 (2004) (standard for reviewing double jeopardy claims)
State v. Jorgenson, 198 Ariz. 390 (App. 2000) (retrial barred when prosecutor’s intentional misconduct causes mistrial)
Pool v. Superior Court (State), 139 Ariz. 98 (1984) (criteria for when mistrial caused by prosecutor bars retrial)
State v. Lamar, 205 Ariz. 431 (2003) (deference to trial court findings on prosecutor intent)
State v. Doerr, 193 Ariz. 56 (1998) (burden to show juror statements prejudiced empaneled jurors)
State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1 (2006) (test for when lesser-included instruction is supported by the evidence)
State v. Sprang, 227 Ariz. 10 (App. 2011) (review of instruction decisions for abuse of discretion)
State v. Baldenegro, 188 Ariz. 10 (App. 1996) (accomplice liability—driver liable for passenger’s shooting)
State v. Garnica, 209 Ariz. 96 (App. 2004) (discharging a weapon into a group constitutes at least recklessness)
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (2006) (presumption jurors follow court instructions)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental-error review for preserved and unpreserved trial errors)