State v. Ware, 1 CA-CR 14-0800

Defendant Bryston Ware, a member of the Vista Park Bloods, fired multiple shots at rival gang members waiting outside a music venue; several people were injured.
Ware was charged with multiple counts: aggravated assault (originally 12, one acquitted at Rule 20), endangerment, leading/participating in a criminal street gang, and assisting a criminal street gang.
During trial defense counsel reported that a juror (Juror 16) had driven through the parking lot where the shooting occurred; juror said she briefly drove through inadvertently and left immediately.
Ware moved to strike Juror 16 for cause and later sought a new trial alleging juror misconduct; the trial court denied both motions.
During closing, prosecutor twice described Nipsey Hussle as a "known Crip singer;" the court had precluded evidence about Hussle being non‑mainstream or "too hardcore" but had not precluded gang affiliation. Ware did not object at trial.
The court found no error and affirmed Ware’s convictions and sentences on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror misconduct (Juror drove through crime scene)	State: Court reasonably found juror’s explanation credible and no extrinsic information was considered.	Ware: Juror violated admonition and may have obtained independent information that could taint verdict.	No abuse of discretion; no extrinsic evidence shown and no prejudice.
Failure to further admonish or sequester juror after disclosure	State: No further action required where juror’s conduct was inadvertent and court reiterated admonition.	Ware: Court should have reminded juror not to discuss or consider observations; failure is fundamental error.	No error; admonitions had been given and repeated; no fundamental error shown.
Prosecutorial misconduct for labeling Nipsey Hussle a "Crip singer"	State: Statements were permissible inferences from Ware’s police interview where Ware referenced Hussle’s Crip affiliation.	Ware: Statements violated preclusion order and referenced facts not in evidence, warranting reversal for fundamental error.	No misconduct: preclusion order did not bar gang affiliation remark; statements were supported by admitted evidence and, even if improper, were isolated and not prejudicial.
Whether isolated remarks require reversal	State: Brief, isolated remarks at closing after long trial do not undermine fairness.	Ware: Any improper remark is fundamental error without objection.	Held against Ware; remarks were neither pervasive nor outcome‑determinative.

State v. Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33 (trial court best positioned to assess juror credibility)
State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (deference to trial court on juror demeanor and credibility)
State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442 (standard for new trial based on juror misconduct)
State v. Miller, 178 Ariz. 555 (presumption of prejudice where jury consulted extraneous information)
State v. Aguilar, 224 Ariz. 299 (State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that extraneous info did not taint verdict)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (fundamental error standard)
State v. Lopez, 217 Ariz. 433 (appellate review scope when issues not raised at trial)
State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376 (necessity of finding error before fundamental error review)
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (scope of permissible closing argument: reasonable inferences from evidence)
State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576 (reversal for prosecutorial misconduct requires pervasive, persistent conduct)