State v. Zavala, 1 CA-CR 20-0445

In Nov. 2018, Dolores Zavala assaulted his girlfriend, Kari, during a domestic dispute; bystanders observed the attack.
Kari suffered severe injuries, including a neck broken in three places, and was hospitalized and transferred to Phoenix.
Neighbors Jennifer, Tacy, and Herman witnessed portions of the assault; Herman engaged Zavala and cut his face during a struggle.
Police found Zavala shortly after, bleeding and carrying a screwdriver and pocketknife; he asked for a lawyer and was transported to the hospital.
A jury convicted Zavala of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault; he was sentenced to concurrent terms (15.75 years on count 1; 11.25 years on counts 2 and 3) and appealed.
On appeal Zavala raised two evidentiary issues: (1) the trial court’s sanitization limitation on using a witness’s prior felonies for impeachment, and (2) improper prosecutorial elicitation of testimony about Zavala’s post-arrest request for counsel and silence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by requiring sanitization of Herman’s prior felonies for impeachment	State: Sanitization was proper because Herman’s felonies did not involve dishonesty and might be unfairly prejudicial; Rule 403 balancing supports limitation	Zavala: Trial court improperly prevented full impeachment by concealing the nature of Herman’s prior felonies	Affirmed: No error. Herman’s convictions lacked dishonesty; court properly balanced probative value vs. prejudice and sanitization was permissible
Whether eliciting testimony that Zavala asked for a lawyer and remained silent violated due process	State: Elicited testimony was factual background, not a comment on guilt; not prejudicial given evidence	Zavala: Prosecutor elicited and emphasized his post-arrest request for counsel and silence, implying guilt and violating Doyle and related precedents	Mixed: Fundamental error occurred (prosecutor elicited/elicited testimony stressing silence/attorney request), but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence; convictions affirmed

State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 (discusses fundamental-error standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Harrison, 195 Ariz. 28 (trial court best positioned to balance probative value vs. unfair prejudice)
State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413 (approves sanitization to limit prejudicial effect of impeachment evidence)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (post-arrest silence cannot be used to imply guilt)
State v. VanWinkle, 229 Ariz. 233 (request for counsel cannot be used against defendant)
State v. McCutcheon, 159 Ariz. 44 (prosecutor’s comments must not direct jurors to defendant’s exercise of Fifth Amendment rights)
State v. Anderson, 110 Ariz. 238 (inference of guilt from silence or attorney request is fundamental error)
State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484 (review of facts in light most favorable to sustaining jury verdict)