State Of Ariz. v. Villalobos

• Decision Date: 01 July 2010
• Docket Number: No. CR-08-0098-AP.,CR-08-0098-AP.
• Citation: State v. Villalobos, 225 Ariz. 74, 235 P.3d 227 (Ariz. 2010)
• Parties: STATE of Arizona, Appellee,v.Joshua Idlefonso VILLALOBOS, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

225 Ariz. 74

235 P.3d 227

STATE of Arizona, Appellee,v.Joshua Idlefonso VILLALOBOS, Appellant.

No. CR-08-0098-AP.

Supreme Court of Arizona En Banc.

July 1, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Phoenix, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation SectionJonathan Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, Attorneys for State of Arizona.

Droban & Company, PC By Kerrie M. Droban, Anthem, Attorney for Joshua Idlefonso Villalobos.

OPINION

HURWITZ, Vice Chief Justice.

¶ 1Joshua Idlefonso Villalobos was convicted of first degree murder and child abuse and sentenced to death for the murder.We have jurisdiction over this automatic appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona ConstitutionandA.R.S. §§ 13-4031and13-4033(A)(1)(2010).

I.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹

¶ 2 Villalobos lived with Annette Verdugo, five-year-old Ashley Molina(Verdugo's daughter), and the couple's two-year-old daughter.On January 3, 2004, Villalobos and the children picked Verdugo up at work and took her to dinner.Ashley did not eat and complained about stomach pains.Villalobos and the children again picked Verdugo up from work after her shift ended in the early morning of January 4.When Verdugo noted an odd smell, Villalobos claimed he had vomited in the car.

¶ 3 When they arrived home, Villalobos carried Ashley upstairs and put her to bed.At approximately 7 a.m., Villalobos told Verdugo that Ashley was unresponsive.Ashley's body was cold and hard.Villalobos told Verdugo “they're going to think it's me, I was the only one with her.”

¶ 4 After some delay, Villalobos and Verdugo took Ashley to the hospital.The emergency room physician recognized immediately that Ashley was dead; she found “somewhere between 150 to 200 bruises” on Ashley's body.After Villalobos told the physician that the bruises were from a fall in the shower, Phoenix police were summoned.

¶ 5 Villalobos was taken to the police station and given Miranda warnings.Villalobos denied hitting Ashley, and a detective asked him to take a polygraph examination.Villalobos agreed.During the examination, Villalobos initially denied injuring Ashley.When the polygrapher accused him of lying, Villalobos admitted that he had punched Ashley.

¶ 6 After the polygraph, a second detective resumed the interrogation.Villalobos admitted that, before Verdugo's dinner break, he had grabbed Ashley by the arm and hit her several times with a closed fist.Villalobos also said that Ashley had passed out in the car and then vomited on him while he was picking Verdugo up from work.

¶ 7 The medical examiner who conducted the autopsy later concluded that Ashley had died of blunt force trauma to the abdomen.He opined that Ashley could have survived for no more than four hours after the fatal injuries and had died between five and eight hours before being taken to the hospital.The autopsy also revealed other internal injuries that predated the fatal injuries.

¶ 8 A grand jury indicted Villalobos for child abuse and first degree murder.Verdugo was indicted for second degree murder and child abuse.She later pleaded guilty to attempted child abuse and testified at Villalobos's trial.

¶ 9 A superior court jury found Villalobos guilty on both counts.During the aggravation phase of the trial, the jury found three aggravating circumstances: the offense was committed in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner, A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(6)(2010);² Villalobos committed the offense while on release from the state department of corrections, A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(7)(a); and the victim was a child under the age of fifteen, A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(9).After the penalty phase, the jury concluded that any mitigating circumstances were not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency and death was the appropriate sentence.

II.ISSUES ON APPEAL

A.GUILT PHASE

1.Motion to Suppress Statements Made to Police and the Polygrapher

¶ 10 Villalobos argues that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the detectives and the polygrapher.We review a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress a confession for “clear and manifest error,” the equivalent of abuse of discretion.State v. Newell,212 Ariz. 389, 396 ¶ 22 & n. 6, 132 P.3d 833, 840 & n. 6(2006).

a Miranda Warnings

¶ 11 After receiving Miranda warnings, Villalobos acknowledged that he understood his rights and answered all questions posed to him.The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the State proved that Villalobos knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights.SeeState v. Tapia,159 Ariz. 284, 286-87, 767 P.2d 5, 7-8(1988).

¶ 12 Villalobos argues, however, that Miranda warnings should have been reissued before his subsequent encounters with the polygrapher and the second detective.Repeated Miranda warnings are required in “circumstances suggesting that a suspect is not fully aware of his rights.”State v. Trostle,191 Ariz. 4, 14, 951 P.2d 869, 879(1997).But this is not such a case.Villalobos not only received the required warnings before the initial interrogation, but also reviewed and signed a consent form reiterating his Miranda rights just before the polygraph examination began.Only three hours elapsed between the beginning of the interview and its conclusion, and Villalobos was aware at all times that he was speaking with police department employees.Seeid.(holding repeated warnings unnecessary for an interrogation that lasted over seven hours at three separate locations);State v. Gilreath,107 Ariz. 318, 319, 487 P.2d 385, 386(1971)(same regarding one twelve-hour gap and one thirty-six-hour gap between warnings).

b. Voluntariness

¶ 13 Villalobos also argues that his statements were involuntary.The State must prove that a confession was “freely and voluntarily made and was not the product of coercion.”State v. Boggs,218 Ariz. 325, 335 ¶ 44, 185 P.3d 111, 121(2008).The superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the State met that burden here.The interviewing detectives and polygrapher each testified that they did not threaten, coerce, or make any promises, and the record supports that testimony.

¶ 14 Villalobos contends the polygrapher coerced him into making inculpatory statements by telling him that an autopsy and DNA evidence could prove his guilt.These predictions, however, were accurate and, even if false, would not have rendered the confession involuntary.See, e.g., Trostle,191 Ariz. at 15, 951 P.2d at 880(holding that a deliberate falsehood by interrogators did not render a confession involuntary).The polygrapher's request that Villalobos tell the truth to “get out of this hole” was also permissible.See, e.g., State v. Amaya-Ruiz,166 Ariz. 152, 165, 800 P.2d 1260, 1273(1990)(noting that police requests for a suspect to tell the truth without threat or promise are not inherently coercive).

¶ 15 When talking to the second detective, Villalobos worried that he would be imprisoned for life for killing Ashley.The detective responded: “Not necessarily, not necessarily, there's going to come a day when you have a relationship with [your daughter].”The detective also told Villalobos that “telling me the truth, and that's being, I didn't plan this, that makes it a lot better for you.”After this exchange, Villalobos admitted he had hit Ashley with a closed fist before Verdugo's dinner break, and he later admitted to striking Ashley repeatedly.

¶ 16 Villalobos argues that the phrases “not necessarily” and “that makes it a lot better for you” were implied promises for leniency.Villalobos, however, had already admitted to striking Ashley before the detective made these statements.SeeState v. Lopez,174 Ariz. 131, 138, 847 P.2d 1078, 1085(1992)(finding alleged inducement irrelevant when incriminating statement occurred beforehand).³More importantly, the detective did not promise leniency.SeeAmaya-Ruiz,166 Ariz. at 165, 800 P.2d at 1273(“Mere advice from the police that it would be better for the accused to tell the truth when unaccompanied by either a threat or a promise does not render a subsequent confession involuntary.”);State v. Walton,159 Ariz. 571, 579, 769 P.2d 1017, 1025(1989)(finding statements by detective that defendant needed to tell the truth to “give yourself a chance” not coercive).

2.Other Acts Evidence

¶ 17 Villalobos argues the trial court erred in admitting the following evidence: (1) testimony that he had violently shaken Ashley in October 2003; (2) his admission that he had bruised Ashley's face and buttocks in November 2003; (3) his admission that he had bruised Ashley's face in December 2003; and (4) his admissions to Verdugo that he had bruised Ashley's arms in the weeks before her death.

¶ 18 Evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b).Such evidence may, however, be admitted “for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”Id.We review the superior court's decision to admit other acts evidence for abuse of discretion.State v. Andriano,215 Ariz. 497, 502 ¶ 17, 161 P.3d 540, 545(2007).

¶ 19 The child abuse charge required proof that Villalobos “intentionally or knowingly” injured Ashley.SeeA.R.S. § 13-3623(A)(2)(2001).The prior abuse evidence was relevant to establish Villalobos's mental state.SeeState v. Smith,130 Ariz. 74, 76, 634 P.2d 1, 3(App.1981)(admitting evidence of prior abuse to establish defendant's mental state).This evidence also rebutted Villalobos's claim that he did not intend to hurt Ashley and hit her as a “reflex,” as well as his contention that Verdugo could have caused the fatal injuries.

¶ 20 In light of Villalobos's defenses, the superior court did...