State v. Favela

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona
• Citation: 684 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 9,234 Ariz. 433,323 P.3d 716
• Docket Number: No. 2 CA–CR 2013–0440.,2 CA–CR 2013–0440.
• Parties: The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael Anthony FAVELA, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 08 April 2014

234 Ariz. 433
323 P.3d 716
684 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 9

The STATE of Arizona, Appellee,
v.
Michael Anthony FAVELA, Appellant.

No. 2 CA–CR 2013–0440.

Court of Appeals of Arizona,
Division 2.

April 8, 2014.

[323 P.3d 717]

Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General, Joseph T. Maziarz, Section Chief Counsel, By David A. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Counsel for Appellee.

Nicole Farnum, Phoenix, Counsel for Appellant.

OPINION
HOWARD, Chief Judge.

¶ 1 After a jury trial, Michael Favela was convicted of aggravated robbery and kidnapping. On appeal, he argues the court erred in admitting expert testimony about a palm print found at the scene of the crime. For the following reasons, we affirm Favela's convictions and sentences.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the convictions. See State v. Mangum, 214 Ariz. 165, ¶ 3, 150 P.3d 252, 253 (App.2007). After Favela and an accomplice entered L.F.'s apartment, they demanded to know where he kept drugs and money, restrained him, hit him in the face, and choked him. When Favela and his accomplice realized they could not find what they were looking for, they locked L.F. in his bedroom and threatened to shoot him if he tried to leave. They then left with L.F.'s television, car keys, jewelry, and wallet. When police arrived later, they searched for DNA ¹ or fingerprint evidence. They did not find any usable DNA evidence but did find a “latent” palm print on the front door. The police later determined that the palm print matched Favela's hand.

¶ 3 Favela was charged and convicted as noted above and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was 15.75 years. We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12–120.21(A)(1) and 13–4033(A)(1).

Admissibility of Latent Palm Print Evidence

¶ 4 Favela argues the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony about the latent palm print the police found at the scene because it did not comply with the requirements of Rule 702, Ariz. R. Evid. We review a trial court's ruling to admit expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, ¶ 14, 298 P.3d 887, 892 (2013).

[323 P.3d 718]

¶ 5 Rule 702 allows an expert to provide opinion testimony if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The recent change of the rule in 2012 reflects a shift in Arizona to adopting the federal standard of admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). See State v. Perez, 233 Ariz. 38, ¶¶ 15–16, 308 P.3d 1189, 1193 (App.2013). Before the rule changed in 2012, the admissibility of qualified expert testimony on fingerprint evidence had been settled since 1921. See Moon v. State, 22 Ariz. 418, 423–24, 198 P. 288, 290 (1921). In Moon, our supreme court stated that “ ‘[s]cientific authority declares that finger prints are reliable as a means of identification,’ ” concluded evidence of matching fingerprints was admissible, but ultimately left the “weight and value of such testimony” to the jury. Id. at 423–24, 198 P. at 290,quoting People v. Sallow, 100 Misc. 447, 165 N.Y.S. 915, 918 (Crim.Ct.1917). Since that time, it does not appear that the general reliability of expert testimony about fingerprint evidence has been seriously questioned in this state, nor has Favela directed us to any authority to that effect. To the contrary, our supreme court has sustained convictions based solely on expert testimony about fingerprint or palm print evidence because the evidence is sufficiently reliable. See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez, 192 Ariz. 58, ¶¶ 11–13 & n. 4, 961 P.2d 1006, 1008–09 & n. 4 (1998) (“At trial, uncontroverted expert testimony established that palm prints are identical to fingerprints with respect to their power to match and identify members of the population.”).

¶ 6 Because our new standard of admissibility is based on federal law, we look to federal authority for guidance on whether Daubert has changed the landscape on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding latent fingerprint or palm print evidence. See Perez, 233 Ariz. 38, ¶ 17, 308 P.3d at 1194; Ariz. R. Evid. Prefatory Comment to 2012 Amendments (“Where the language of an Arizona rule parallels that of a...