State v. Gonzales, 6051-PR
| Citation | 681 P.2d 1368,140 Ariz. 349 |
| Decision Date | 22 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 6051-PR,6051-PR |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Manuel Romero GONZALES, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., William J. Schafer, III, Chief Counsel, Criminal Division, Barbara A. Jarrett, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Frederic J. Dardis, Pima County Public Defender, Frank P. Leto, Deputy Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant.
Defendant-appellant Manuel Romero Gonzales was convicted of unlawful imprisonment in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1303. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in excluding expert witness testimony on the defendant's low intelligence, mental retardation, and probable organic brain syndrome. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3) and Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.19. We vacate the Court of Appeals' opinion. The case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
The facts necessary for disposition of this appeal are as follows. On December 1, 1980, the defendant was arrested and charged with sexual assault and kidnapping. On April 20, 1981, he was found incompetent to stand trial. Ariz.R.Crim.P. 11. On February 1, 1982, that finding was vacated, see Ariz.R.Crim.P. 11.6, and a jury trial was scheduled.
The state moved in limine to preclude the defendant from introducing the expert witness testimony of Dr. Wallace Diers. Dr. Diers planned to testify that the defendant had an intelligence quotient ("I.Q.") of 55, which rendered him mildly retarded, and that the defendant probably suffered from an organic brain syndrome that impaired his cognition and affected his ability to reason and exercise judgment. The state argued that Dr. Diers' testimony was irrelevant to any issue in the case because the defendant had been found competent to stand trial. Defense counsel urged that Dr. Diers' testimony was relevant for two reasons. First, it would help her to explain to the jury the defendant's manner and demeanor when he was called to testify. Second, it would help her explain why the defendant lied to the police on the day of his arrest, 1 and why he might be inordinately confused on cross-examination. The court found that the proposed I.Q. testimony had "logical relevance because the jury could reasonably infer that if someone has a low I.Q. they are less likely to understand the questions that are asked of them and more likely to give an improper answer that's subject to misinterpretation," but nonetheless granted the motion to suppress on the grounds that the probative value of the testimony was outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues and unnecessary delay.
On the following day, out of the hearing of the jury, defense counsel sought to make an actual offer of proof of Dr. Diers' excluded testimony for the record. She urged the court to reconsider its decision to exclude the testimony on two grounds. First, as argued at the motion in limine, she said it would provide the jury with information necessary for a fair assessment of defendant's credibility. Second, she stated that the evidence was relevant and important to defendant's "mere presence" defense. The trial court declined to reverse its decision to exclude Dr. Diers' testimony. It stated that "expert testimony [on defendant's intelligence] would interject into the trial, excessive emphasis on the matter of sympathy, and I think a jury can determine itself without expert testimony whether a witness is telling the truth or lying or confused or not * * *." At that point, defense counsel offered the following explanation of why Dr. Diers' testimony, specifically, proffered testimony on organic brain syndrome, was vital to the "mere presence" defense:
The trial court ordered incorporation of Dr. Diers' testimony from the rule 11 hearing at which defendant was found competent to stand trial 2 and denied defense counsel's request for an actual offer of proof.
On March 23, 1982, the defendant was found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, A.R.S. § 13-1303(A), 3 a lesser included offense of kidnapping. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Diers' testimony was improper. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument and affirmed. We vacate the Court of Appeals' decision and reverse the conviction. We find that the trial court failed to recognize the relevance of the challenged testimony with respect to defendant's "mere presence" defense, and underestimated the value of the testimony with respect to its ability to provide the jury with information essential to a fair, well-informed assessment of defendant's credibility. Because the trial court's exclusion of the testimony effectively precluded the defendant from introducing evidence essential to his case, the trial court's decision resulted in a denial of defendant's right to due process that was not harmless. 4
As defined in Ariz.R.Evid. 401, " '[r]elevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Ariz.R.Evid. 403 provides that:
"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
In determining whether the probative value of evidence outweighs the danger of prejudice and confusion, the trial court must examine the purpose of the offer. State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983). Because the trial court, in the instant case, failed to acknowledge and examine a vital purpose for which the challenged testimony was offered, and because that failure resulted in a denial of the defendant's right to due process, we find its decision to exclude the challenged testimony to be error.
Defendant's "mere presence" defense was that though he was present in the apartment in which the alleged rape occurred, he did not participate in it. He claimed that he had met the alleged victim ("Ms. O") at the Brown Derby Bar sometime before November 30 and again, someplace other than at that bar, on November 30. He testified at trial that when he met her the second time, "she told [him] to see if [he] could get some weed [marijuana]." Having obtained marijuana, he went to meet her at Antonio's Bar. He then "showed her a joint and she [went with him]." The record indicates that sometime that evening, defendant, Ms. O, and two other men went to defendant's apartment. While there, the foursome drank whiskey and smoked marijuana. At some point, defendant retired to the bathroom. He testified that while in the bathroom, he heard Ms. O screaming, opened the bathroom door, and saw that "[s]he had her whole clothes off, [and that the] one guy, I don't know his name, was on top of her." He testified that he emerged from the bathroom only after the two other men had left, that he then kissed Ms. O, who responded by biting his tongue, and that he gave Ms. O a pair of his pants to wear home.
As noted above, defendant was charged with kidnapping and sexual assault. Both of these are specific intent crimes. 5 At the end of defendant's trial the judge instructed the jury on these two crimes and on unlawful imprisonment. Because the defendant was acquitted of kidnapping and sexual assault, we need not consider whether the trial court's failure to recognize the relevance of the excluded testimony to those crimes was harmful. Because defendant was, however, found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, we must determine if the jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that on November 30, 1981 the defendant had knowingly restrained Ms. O, even if Dr. Diers' excluded testimony had been admitted.
The judge gave the jury the following instruction on unlawful imprisonment:
We note further that "restrain," within the meaning of A.R.S. § 13-1303 means:
"to restrict a person's movements without consent, without legal authority, and in a manner which interferes substantially with such person's liberty, by either moving such person from one place to another or by confining such person."
A.R.S. § 13-1301(2).
To convict the defendant of unlawful imprisonment, the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware or of the belief that his actions or omissions were in the nature of a restriction on Ms. O's movements. Can we say that had the excluded testimony been admitted the jury's conclusion would have been the same? Would Dr. Diers' testimony have added reasonable doubt to the jurors' findings that the defendant had knowingly restrained Ms. O?
The jury presumably found that the defendant had held down, but not raped, Ms. O or that his failure to intervene or call for help constituted a restraint on her freedom of movement. Dr. Diers' proffered testimony, that the defendant probably had organic brain damage and that a person with organic brain syndrome would suffer a generalized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hyde
...trial court, by offer of proof or otherwise, that the testimony is probative of a material issue in dispute. State v. Gonzales, 140 Ariz. 349, 353, 681 P.2d 1368, 1372 (1984). Expert psychological testimony is not appropriate, however, to show the actual mental state of a defendant at a giv......
-
State v. Mott
...offenses. The court of appeals, division two, relying on State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. 32, 628 P.2d 580 (1981), andState v. Gonzales, 140 Ariz. 349, 681 P.2d 1368 (1984), reversed the trial court and held that the evidence was admissible to challenge an element of the crime. State v. Mott......
-
Clark v. Arizona
...see 187 Ariz., at 544, 931 P.2d, at 1054 (contrasting State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. 32, 628 P.2d 580 (1981), and State v. Gonzales, 140 Ariz. 349, 681 P.2d 1368 (1984)). We will therefore assume for argument that Clark raised this claim, as we consider the due process challenge to the Mot......
-
Penry v. State
...Pohlot, 827 F.2d at 901 (suggesting that a rule barring evidence relevant to mens rea "may be unconstitutional"); State v. Gonzales, 140 Ariz. 349, 681 P.2d 1368, 1372 (1984) (exclusion of evidence of mental disease when relevant to a material issue is a denial of due Accordingly, I join th......