State v. Ramirez Enriquez, 2
| Decision Date | 23 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CR,2 |
| Citation | 737 P.2d 407,153 Ariz. 431 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Carlos RAMIREZ ENRIQUEZ, Appellant. 4673. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Defendant was convicted of the sale on October 30 and 31, 1984, of small quantities of marijuana to an undercover police officer posing as a high school student. The officer and a real high school student testified to the sales. The defendant and his female companion denied that any such sales occurred. In order to bolster its case, the prosecution introduced, over objection, the evidence described in the remainder of this opinion. We find the admission of such evidence erroneous and reverse.
First, the police officer's supervisor was asked why an undercover investigation was undertaken. He responded: "I received numerous comments from concerned citizens that they suspected drug activity in a residence in San Manuel." The context of the questioning made it clear that the residence referred to was the defendant's residence. Defense counsel's objection should have been sustained. The supervisor was testifying that a number of people had told him that defendant was a drug dealer. Not only is this inadmissible hearsay but it also is an attempt to prove defendant's character as a drug dealer from which the jury was invited to infer his guilt of the present charges. This use is plainly forbidden by Rule 404(a), Rules of Evidence, 17A A.R.S.
Second, over objection, witnesses were allowed to testify to other occasions on which defendant sold marijuana and evidence was received of the seizure of a small amount of marijuana from his home over a month after the date of the crimes charged in this case. All this evidence, of course, was the proof of other criminal episodes offered to prove guilt of the crimes charged. At trial the prosecutor argued that all this evidence "completed the story of the crime." But that phrase does not mean that the prosecution is entitled to complete the defendant's criminal history. In order to prove the crimes on October 30 and 31, 1984, it was hardly necessary to prove either events during the prior year or a seizure a month later.
The trial court apparently admitted this evidence under Rule 404(b) to prove a common scheme or plan. The jury was instructed:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edward Charles L.
...467 U.S. 1209, 104 S.Ct. 2396, 81 L.Ed.2d 353 (1984); United States v. Bartley, 855 F.2d 547 (8th Cir.1988); State v. Ramirez Enriquez, 153 Ariz. 431, 737 P.2d 407 (App.1987); State v. Walls, 541 A.2d 591 (Del.1987), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 967, 110 S.Ct. 412, 107 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989); State v......
-
State v. Butler
...of which the charged crime [was] part.'" 187 Ariz. 102, 108-09, 927 P.2d 762, 768-69 (1996), quoting State v. Ramirez Enriquez, 153 Ariz. 431, 432-33, 737 P.2d 407, 408-09 (App. 1987). Butler also relies on Vigil, in which the court ruled testimony about prior acts was provided to "suggest[......
-
State v. Butler
...of which the charged crime [was] part.’ ” 187 Ariz. 102, 108–09, 927 P.2d 762, 768–69 (1996), quoting State v. Ramirez Enriquez, 153 Ariz. 431, 432–33, 737 P.2d 407, 408–09 (App.1987). Butler also relies on Vigil, in which the court ruled testimony about prior acts was provided to “suggest[......
-
State v. Kreus
...focuses on whether acts part of "'particular plan of which the charged crime is a part'"), quoting State v. Ramirez Enriquez, 153 Ariz. 431, 433, 737 P.2d 407, 409 (App. 1987); compare State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60, ¶ 47, 280 P.3d 604, 618 (2012) (finding common scheme or plan where expert......