State v. Arias

• Decision Date: 24 March 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA-CR 15-0302,1 CA-CR 15-0302
• Citation: State v. Arias, 248 Ariz. 546, 462 P.3d 1051 (Ariz. App. 2020)
• Parties: STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jodi Ann ARIAS, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

248 Ariz. 546

462 P.3d 1051

STATE of Arizona, Appellee,

v.Jodi Ann ARIAS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0302

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.

FILED March 24, 2020

CAMPBELL, Judge:

¶1Jodi Arias appeals her conviction and sentence for premeditated first-degree murder.¹She asserts that trial publicity and prosecutorial misconduct deprived her of a fair trial.For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 After meeting at a business convention in September 2006, Arias and the victim began a turbulent sexual relationship that persisted until she killed him in June 2008.Nine days before his death, the victim communicated with Arias via text messages, repeatedly referring to her in a sexually derogatory manner and characterizing her as "evil,""worthless," and a "sociopath."

¶3 Two days after those text messages, Arias’ grandparents, with whom she lived in California, notified local police that their home had been burglarized.Although money and other valuables in plain view were not taken, Arias’ grandparents reported that a small .25 caliber handgun had been stolen.

¶4 On June 3, 2008, Arias drove to a former boyfriend's home and borrowed two gas cans, explaining she was setting out for a road trip through the desert.Before leaving California, Arias purchased another gas can, rented a car, made numerous fuel purchases, and turned off her cell phone.

¶5 Five days later, friends of the victim discovered his decomposing body in the shower of his Mesa home.He had been stabbed numerous times, his throat had been slit, and he had been shot in the head.While officers were at the scene, Arias called the police and asked to speak with the lead detective.Although he declined to take her call at that time, the detective spoke with Arias the following day when she called the police again.At that time, Arias described her relationship with the victim and, when asked, denied that the victim owned a gun.Initially, Arias denied being in Arizona when the victim was killed.Upon further questioning, however, she admitted being in the victim's home at the time of his death, claiming two armed intruders murdered him, causing her to flee for her life.

¶6 Meanwhile, investigators found substantial forensic evidence at the crime scene.In the victim's master suite, investigators recovered a .25 caliber bullet casing, a strand of Arias’ hair, and a "latent palm impression" matching Arias’ hand.They also found a digital camera and memory card in the victim's washing machine.Photos on the memory card documented sexual activity between Arias and the victim the day he was killed.The photos also depicted the victim in the shower immediately before his death as well as a few unfocused photographs inadvertently captured during the killing.Based upon this evidence, the State charged Arias with first-degree premeditated murder and, in the alternative, first-degree felony murder.Several months later, the State filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.

¶7 At trial, the medical examiner testified that the victim suffered three fatal injuries—a chest wound, caused by a knife, piercing his heart; a neck wound, caused by a knife, perforating the jugular vein and carotid artery; and a gunshot head wound penetrating his frontal lobe.The victim also suffered numerous non-fatal stab wounds and multiple defensive wounds, which showed he had attempted to disarm his attacker before his throat was slit and he was shot in the head.Because the nature of some of the wounds reflected that the victim was in motion when he was stabbed, and there was considerable bleeding at each of the stab wound sites, the medical examiner concluded that the victim was alive when each stab wound was inflicted.Nine stab wounds were consistent with the victim having had his back turned toward his attacker when they were inflicted, including a wound to the back of his head that was so deep it left a divot missing from his skull and chipped away bone fragments.Given the severity of the neck wound, the medical examiner testified that the victim lost consciousness within seconds of having his throat slit, immediately rendering him incapable of further defending himself.Because there was no blood loss at the entry site of the gunshot wound or hemorrhaging in the brain, the medical examiner further opined that the victim may have already died by the time he was shot in the head.

¶8 Testifying on her own behalf and contrary to her police interview statements, Arias ultimately admitted killing the victim.She claimed she did so in self-defense after the victim threatened her life and "lunged" at her in "anger."To support her claim that her actions were reasonable and justified, Arias testified that the victim had previously physically attacked her on multiple occasions, and she was afraid of him.

¶9 Undermining this defense, the State presented evidence that Arias had planned the killing (staging the burglary of her grandparents’ home to conceal her theft of the gun, renting a vehicle, acquiring gas cans to avoid leaving a trail of fuel purchases, turning off her cell phone) and attempted to clean the crime scene and cover up her wrongdoing (leaving the victim a voicemail several hours after the killing, sending the victim an email three days after the killing, providing a false alibi, and lying to the police).

¶10 After a 67-day trial, the jury unanimously found Arias guilty of premeditated first-degree murder.The jury also found she committed the murder in an especially cruel manner but was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the sentence—death or life in prison.After a second penalty-phase trial, a different jury was likewise unable to reach a unanimous verdict, and the superior court sentenced Arias to prison for her natural life.

DISCUSSION

I.Trial Publicity

¶11 Although Arias denies that publicity before trial caused her prejudice, she contends the superior court improperly permitted media access to the courtroom during trial, including a livestream broadcast of the proceedings.She asserts this media coverage deprived her of a fair trial and an impartial jury.

¶12 Before trial, and against the advice of counsel, Arias participated in multiple nationally televised interviews.During a pretrial hearing, defense counsel referenced these interviews and expressed frustration that Arias actively sought media attention, complaining that she seemed primarily "focused on the PR aspects of [the] case" and preferred "trying her case in the press."

¶13 Approximately 18 months before trial, a local television news outlet requested permission to provide photographic coverage of the courtroom proceedings.In granting the request, the superior court ordered media personnel to comply with Arizona Supreme Court Rule("Rule") 122 and forbid: (1)"use of flashbulbs, strobe lights or other artificial lights" in the courthouse, (2)"use of cameras in the hallway, stairwell, elevator, cafeteria, or other public or private area[s] of the courthouse," and (3) any photographs of the victim's family.Arguing the media coverage would interfere with her constitutional right to a fair trial, Arias moved for reconsideration.On the heels of her motion to reconsider, In Session(formerly known as Court TV ) requested permission to film the proceedings, contending its coverage would not infringe Arias’ constitutional rights or compromise the dignity of the court proceedings.In response, Arias moved to sequester the prospective jury.

¶14 After multiple hearings on the various motions, the superior court granted In Session’s request to film the proceedings, finding Arias had failed "to show that the likelihood of harm [ ] outweigh[ed] the benefits to the public of camera coverage."SeeAriz. R. Sup. Ct. 122(d)(stating requests for electronic coverage of courtroom proceedings should be approved absent "specific, on-the-record findings that there is a likelihood of harm ... [that] outweighs the benefit of coverage to the public").The court again ordered that all coverage comply with Rule 122 and outlined certain protocols regarding the number of cameras, disabling of defense microphones, recording of witnesses, and so forth.SeeAriz. R. Sup. Ct. 122(e)(stating that the superior court"will preserve the dignity of the proceeding by designating the placement of equipment and personnel" and forbidding any "conduct or dress that may disrupt or detract from the dignity of the proceeding").The court also denied Arias’ motion to sequester the jury.

¶15 During jury selection, the superior court informed the prospective jurors that: (1) the trial would be televised, (2) no juror would be shown on camera, and (3) empaneled jurors would be required to "avoid all media coverage" of the case and "report [ ] immediately" if they saw or heard "anything about the case" outside the courtroom.Notwithstanding this instruction and the court's prior rulings establishing the parameters of media coverage, issues regarding publicity arose frequently throughout the trial.For example, (1) on at least two occasions, media members inadvertently filmed and broadcast some jurors’ images; (2) a member of the media attempted to contact a juror as the juror left the courthouse; (3) on at least one occasion, the media broadcast Arias’ leg restraint; (4) members of the media obtained and broadcast Arias’ journals and her parents’ police interview statements; (5)JurorNo. 5 was excused from service, spoke with the media, and then returned to the courtroom to watch the trial as a spectator; (6) after JurorNo. 8 was arrested and excused from service midway through the trial, police disclosed his identifying information to the media; and (7) a media cameraman attempted to film the jurors as they walked to their parking lot.Beyond those violations of the court's orders, other events made clear that the trial was attracting huge amounts of public interest as it progressed.The defense team received numerous death...