State v. Dodson
| Decision Date | 02 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0192,2 CA-CR 2016-0192 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GEORGE GUESS DODSON II, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Gila County
The Honorable Gary V. Scales, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Phoenix
By Linley Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellee
Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Miller and Judge Howard1 concurred.
¶1 Following a jury trial, George Dodson was convicted of weapons misconduct and four counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, Dodson argues that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence and that insufficient evidence supported the jury's verdicts on three of the aggravated assault counts. Because we find no error, we affirm.
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts. State v. Miles, 211 Ariz. 475, ¶ 2, 123 P.3d 669, 670 (App. 2005). In April 2015, Dodson entered J.B.'s home while J.B. was lying in his bed. Once in J.B.'s room, Dodson "grabbed [J.B.'s] knife" and "drug it across [J.B.'s] gut," leaving a "red mark." J.B. hit Dodson on the head with a "thumping stick," escorted him out of the house and called 9-1-1 to report a disturbance. Officers with the Payson Police Department (PPD) arrived shortly thereafter. Dodson was outside J.B.'s house when the officers arrived and, upon seeing them, ran back to his home less than a mile away.
¶3 After Dodson arrived home, approximately fifteen PPD officers surrounded his house. A standoff ensued that lasted about twelve hours, during which Dodson frequently shouted at the officers, threatened to shoot them, and stated they were "going to go out in a ball of flame." He also appeared at various times holding knives and a pellet gun. Crisis negotiators attempted, unsuccessfully, to persuade Dodson to leave the house "peacefully and unarmed."
Officers also deployed teargas at least twenty-seven times, but Dodson still refused to leave.
¶4 At one point, Dodson threw a Molotov cocktail2 out of a window and toward three officers. It hit the ground near the officers, "erupted into [a] flame," and started a fire roughly six feet in diameter. Officers were able to extinguish the fire about twenty minutes later.
¶5 Eleven hours after the standoff began, officers with the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) arrived at the residence. They deployed a canister of "pepper spray vapor" into the house, and, approximately four minutes later, Dodson threw the canister back outside. After DPS officers deployed a second, stronger canister of teargas, Dodson left the house, and officers arrested him.
¶6 A grand jury indicted Dodson on one count of aggravated assault with a knife, three counts of aggravated assault with a "makeshift incendiary bomb," and one count of misconduct involving weapons. A jury found Dodson guilty of all charges. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive and concurrent terms of imprisonment totaling sixty-four years. We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).
¶7 Dodson first argues the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a pellet gun,3 a photograph of that pellet gun, and fourother photographs depicting weapons4 found inside his home. He contends the evidence was not relevant and was unfairly prejudicial. We review a court's ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, ¶ 56, 314 P.3d 1239, 1258 (2013), viewing "the evidence in the 'light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect,'" State v. Harrison, 195 Ariz. 28, ¶ 21, 985 P.2d 513, 518 (App. 1998), quoting State v. Castro, 163 Ariz. 465, 473, 788 P.2d 1216, 1224 (App. 1989).
¶8 Evidence is relevant if "(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Ariz. R. Evid. 401. Photographic evidence, in particular, may be relevant "to prove the corpus del[i]cti, to identify the victim, to show the nature and location of the fatal injury, to help determine the degree or atrociousness of the crime, to corroborate state witnesses, [or] toillustrate or explain testimony." State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327, ¶ 39, 111 P.3d 369, 381-82 (2005), quoting State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 288, 660 P.2d 1208, 1215 (1983).
¶9 Relevant evidence may be excluded, however, "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice." Ariz. R. Evid. 403. "Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror." State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 545, 931 P.2d 1046, 1055 (1997). The trial court "has considerable discretion in determining whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect." State v. Gilfillan, 196 Ariz. 396, ¶ 29, 998 P.2d 1069, 1078 (App. 2000).
¶10 The photograph of the pellet gun and the pellet gun itself were clearly relevant, as they corroborated the testimony of the officers that had seen Dodson holding it while in the house. See Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327, ¶ 39, 111 P.3d at 381-82. In this context, the photographs did not "suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror." Mott, 187 Ariz. at 545, 931 P.2d at 1055. The trial court therefore did not abuse its broad discretion in concluding that the probative value of the evidence was not "substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice." Ariz. R. Evid. 403; see also Gilfillan, 196 Ariz. 396, ¶ 29, 998 P.2d at 1078.
¶11 The other four photographs Dodson contends were erroneously admitted depict: (1) a knife lodged in a wall inside Dodson's house, (2) a buck knife—found inside Dodson's house—lying on a sidewalk, (3) a "spear," which consisted of a knife duct-taped to the end of a pipe, as found in Dodson's bathroom, and (4) a close-up of the spear in the bathroom. None of the officers testified they had seen Dodson with the two knives5 or the spear depicted inthe photographs, but instead they explained they found those items during the search of Dodson's home after he was arrested.
¶12 Dodson contends these photographs were not probative of any of the charged offenses and "impermissibly cast [him] as a dangerous person," relying on United States v. Hitt, 981 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1992). At issue in Hitt was whether the defendant had internally modified a rifle in such a way that it became a machine gun. Id. at 423. The trial court admitted, over the defendant's objections, a photograph depicting the exterior of the rifle, as well as a dozen other weapons belonging to the defendant's roommate. Id. On appeal, the court found the probative value, if any, of the photograph was "exceedingly small" because it revealed nothing about the disputed issue: whether the internal parts of the gun were dirty, worn, or defective. Id. at 423-24. Furthermore, the photograph "was fraught with the twin dangers of unfairly prejudicing the defendant and misleading the jury" because the jury likely assumed that the additional weapons also belonged to the defendant. Id. at 424. "Once the jury was misled into thinking all the weapons were [the defendant's], they might well have concluded [he] was the sort of person who'd illegally own a machine gun, or was so dangerous he should be locked up regardless of whether or not he committed this offense." Id.
¶13 The state argues Hitt is distinguishable because the photographs here "were highly relevant to prove [Dodson's] intent to place the officers in reasonable apprehension and to corroborate the officers' versions of events." It also points out that the photographs provide evidence that Dodson had barricaded furniture inside his home during the standoff.
¶14 However, the photographs did not corroborate the officers' testimony because none of the officers testified that they saw Dodson holding the knives depicted in the photos. Additionally, the fact that Dodson had those weapons in his home is only marginally relevant, if at all, to whether he threw the Molotov cocktail towards the officers with the intent to place them in "reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury." A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(2). Moreover, only two of the photographs even remotely show that Dodson had barricaded himself inside—both depict a sign placed in front of awindow and one also appears to show a cabinet blocking access to the kitchen. We therefore find the state's attempts to distinguish Hitt on these grounds unavailing.
¶15 In any event, any potential error in admitting the photographs was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Lizardi, 234 Ariz. 501, ¶ 19, 323 P.3d 1152, 1157 (App. 2014). An error is considered harmless "if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [it] did not contribute to or affect the verdict." State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588, 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993). This review involves a id., and, unless overwhelming evidence supports the jury's verdicts, often involves considering a variety of factors, State v. Romero, 240 Ariz. 503, ¶¶ 8-9, 381 P.3d 297, 302 (App. 2016).
¶16 As to the three counts of aggravated assault against the officers, overwhelming evidence supported the jury's verdicts that Dodson "[i]ntentionally plac[ed]" the officers "in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury" by using something "designed for...
To continue reading
Request your trial