State v. Valdez
| Decision Date | 04 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 115 Ariz. 1,562 P.2d 1368 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. David Rabago VALDEZ, Appellant. 852. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of possession of a narcotic drug and was sentenced to five years probation on the condition that he serve one year in the Pima County Jail. He raises three points in this appeal, none of which requires reversal.
On July 3, 1975, an officer of the Tucson Police Department was cruising in an unmarked vehicle when he observed appellant. The officer identified himself, and asked appellant for his date of birth in order to verify a warrant check made earlier that morning at the police department. The check came back affirmative in that a bench warrant had been issued for failure to pay a fine for reckless driving imposed by the Tucson City Court. The officer, along with a detective of the police department, patted down appellant and discovered a small brown back containing a substance which later was found to be hashish.
Appellant's initial contention is that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his motion for a new trial based upon the court's refusal to invoke Rule 9.3(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to defense counsel's request. While defense counsel was cross-examining one of the police officers, the state's next witness, a criminalist, entered the courtroom. At a point later in the examination, defense counsel noticed the presence of the criminalist and asked the court to invoke the rule. The court refused. Appellant claims error in that the criminalist heard the officer testify as to the usable quantity of hashish, a critical issue in the case. However, defense counsel had not asked to invoke the rule until After the police officer had testified that the hashish was indeed more than enough to constitute a usable amount. Following counsel's request, the officer's testimony comprised only five additional answers on cross-examination, none of which involved an element of the case. Appellant argues that under Rule 9.3(a), which has eliminated discretion in invoking the rule upon the request of either party, the failure of the court to honor his request requires reversal, even without resulting prejudice. We disagree. Even fundamental error does not require reversal where the record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless. State v. Anderson, 110 Ariz. 238, 517 P.2d 508 (1973). Any error is harmless here.
Appellant next claims that there was no evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Givens v. State, 13849
...the victim on the night in question. This testimony could not have been influenced by the victim's testimony. See State v. Valdez, 115 Ariz. 1, 562 P.2d 1368 (Ariz.App.1977). On the second day of taking testimony, the victim and another witness who had already testified were present in the ......
-
State v. Murray
...is an amount usable under the known practices of addicts. State v. Rios Payan, 15 Ariz.App. 128, 486 P.2d 808 (1971); State v. Valdez, 115 Ariz. 1, 562 P.2d 1368 (App.1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Roberts, 126 Ariz. 92, 612 P.2d 1055 (1980). "We feel that the effects of drugs ......
-
State v. Roberts, 4898
...requires that the court's failure to honor a request to exclude must result in prejudice to the defendant. See State v. Valdez, 115 Ariz. 1, 562 P.2d 1368 (App.1977); cf. State v. Schlaefli, 117 Ariz. 1, 570 P.2d 772 (1977); State v. Navarrette, 115 Ariz. 574, 566 P.2d 1050 (App.1977). Unde......
-
State v. Gastelum
...possible to conclude with assurance that a defendant was definitely not prejudiced by the failure to exclude." Id. (citing State v. Valdez, 115 Ariz. 1, 2 (App. 1977)).¶7 Gastelum argues he was prejudiced because Blake's testimony advanced the State's theory of the case, addressed "the defe......