State v. Villa
| Decision Date | 09 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | 2 CA-CR 2009-0372 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDWARD TERRAZAS VILLA, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.
Tucson
Attorneys for Appellant
¶1 After a jury trial, Edward Villa was convicted of first-degree murder, third-degree burglary, and unlawful use of a means of transportation. The trial court imposed aterm of life imprisonment for the murder and two presumptive terms of 2.5 and 1.5 years' imprisonment for the other two charges. He raises several issues on appeal, none of which warrant reversal. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding Villa's convictions, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury's verdict. See State v. Pierce, 223 Ariz. 570, n.2, 225 P.3d 1146, 1146 n.2 (App. 2010). In March 2005, R. reported her car stolen after her friend, Villa, had borrowed it and failed to return it. Villa was arrested ten days later when a Pima County sheriff's deputy stopped him while he was driving the car, but charges against him ultimately were dismissed without prejudice.
¶3 A little over two years later, in early November 2007, law enforcement officers went to the home of then eighty-nine-year-old R. to check on her welfare after her daughter had been unable to contact her. They found the home locked, with no signs of forced entry or obvious indications of violence or theft, and no vehicle at the residence. Two days later, R.'s car was discovered in the parking lot of a grocery store. Persons in the area told officers they had noticed the car parked in different spaces within the lot throughout the week. Eight months later, a passing motorcyclist attending to a mechanical problem discovered R.'s partially mummified body in a garbage bag in a wash near Interstate 19. The wash was less than five miles from R.'s home and along the route between it and the area where her car had been found.
¶4 Early in the investigation into her disappearance, friends of R. had suggested Villa might have information on her whereabouts. Officers eventually madecontact with Villa, who subsequently met with the investigating detective on multiple occasions and also provided a DNA1 sample. Villa discussed his friendship with R., as well as an arrangement between them wherein he helped her with small building and construction projects and also drove with her to medical appointments and other errands. He denied that R. ever had given him presents other than some glass marbles and also denied having been in her car after early October 2007.
¶5 Crime scene investigators eventually took DNA samples from the interior of R.'s car; subsequent analysis revealed that the majority of the DNA discovered on the steering wheel and all of the DNA on the gearshift matched Villa's. The detective who spoke with Villa also noted some of Villa's statements either were inconsistent with the evidence he had found or otherwise inaccurate. Additionally, the detective discovered that the temporary employment agency for which Villa worked was located across the street from the grocery store where R.'s vehicle had been found and that his storage locker was half a mile away. It was also learned that Villa's 1994 Chrysler had been impounded in early October 2007.
¶6 In September 2008, Villa, who had not been told by the officers that R. was deceased, agreed to assist in the investigation by walking through R.'s house and describing work he had done. While he was with the officers in R.'s home, he noted a display case of R.'s that had been damaged and stated, "R[.] wouldn't like that it is cracked, but I guess it doesn't make any difference now." He then agreed to come to the police station where he answered more questions and thereafter was arrested for R.'smurder. He was convicted and sentenced as outlined above. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).
¶7 We address Villa's arguments in the order raised in his appellate brief.
¶8 Villa first contends his convictions for first-degree murder and unlawful use of a means of transportation were not supported by sufficient evidence. Our review of this issue is confined to determining "whether substantial evidence supports the verdict." State v. Sharma, 216 Ariz. 292, ¶ 7, 165 P.3d 693, 695 (App. 2007). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that 'reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990), quoting State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, 610 P.2d 51, 53 (1980). We will reverse a conviction if "there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the verdict," such that "rational jurors could not have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. George, 206 Ariz. 436, ¶ 3, 79 P.3d 1050, 1054 (App. 2003).
¶9 Villa first argues the state's case "was based solely on speculation and conjecture" and that it failed to prove he had killed R. He offers no authority for this portion of his argument, relying solely on three conclusory statements. First, he asserts the motives alleged by the state were not supported by any evidence. He fails, however, to offer any explanation of why this is so. More importantly, he ignores that motive is not an element of murder and that the state is not required to prove it. See State v. Hunter, 136 Ariz. 45, 50, 664 P.2d 195, 200 (1983).
¶10 Second, Villa claims that, although he was the primary contributor to DNA found in R.'s car, "no evidence showed that he took possession of the car in connection with [R.'s] murder." But the state presented circumstantial evidence belying this claim. R. and her car were noticed to be missing at roughly the same time, and R.'s body was discovered next to the highway en route to the location where the car ultimately was found, which was in an area Villa frequented. See State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, ¶ 89, 84 P.3d 456, 477 (2004) (); State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127, ¶ 58, 14 P.3d 997, 1013 (2000) (); Cutrer v. State, 695 S.E.2d 597, 599 (Ga. 2010) (); cf. State v. McKnight, 837 N.E.2d 315, 330 (Ohio 2005) (). Moreover, a witness testified R. had been afraid of Villa. And as police investigated her whereabouts, Villa's statements were inconsistent with the DNA evidence found in R.'s car, and he evinced an awareness of R.'s death before the discovery of her body had been revealed to him. Finally, some of R.'s property was found in Villa's storage locker, although he had told police she had not given himanything apart from some marbles. Accordingly, we reject Villa's claim that his connection to R.'s car was irrelevant to R.'s murder.
¶11 To the extent we understand Villa's third argument, he appears to contend his conviction was based on certain erroneously admitted evidence, implying that without it he could not have been convicted. As we later discuss, however, see infra ¶¶ 31-34, the evidence he challenges was admitted properly and, in any event, it was not the sole evidence of his guilt.
¶12 Villa next maintains even if there was evidence he killed R., it was insufficient to establish either felony murder or premeditation. The jury did not unanimously agree whether Villa had premeditated R.'s murder or whether he had killed her in the course of a felony; accordingly, if evidence was insufficient as to either theory, Villa is entitled to reversal of his murder conviction. See State v. Detrich, 178 Ariz. 380, 383-84, 873 P.2d 1302, 1305-06 (1994) (); cf. State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327, ¶ 59, 111 P.3d 369, 385 (2005) (). Although we find this a close question, we conclude sufficient evidence was presented to sustain Villa's conviction under either theory.
¶13 Villa asserts the in killing R. His arguments, however, relate almost exclusively to his contention that he had no motive to kill R., a factor irrelevant to the question ofwhether the crime was premeditated. See Hunter, 136 Ariz. at 50, 664 P.2d at 200 (). To establish premeditation, the state was required to present evidence from which the jury reasonably could conclude Villa had "acted with either the intent or knowledge that he would kill [R.] and that such intent or knowledge preceded the killing by a length of time permitting reflection." State v. Murray, 184 Ariz....
To continue reading
Request your trial