State v. Wright

• Decision Date: 12 April 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2 CA-CR 2006-0002.,2 CA-CR 2006-0002.
• Citation: 155 P.3d 1064,214 Ariz. 540
• Parties: The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert Joseph WRIGHT, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

155 P.3d 1064

214 Ariz. 540

The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert Joseph WRIGHT, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 2006-0002.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department A.

April 12, 2007.

Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Randall M. Howe and Michael T. O'Toole, Phoenix, Attorneys for Appellee.

Robert J. Hooker, Pima County Public Defender by John F. Palumbo, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant.

OPINION

VÁSQUEZ, Judge.

¶ 1 A jury found Robert Joseph Wright guilty of theft of means of transportation, and the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on a three-year term of probation. On appeal, he asserts the trial court improperly precluded the testimony of his psychiatric expert witness offered to rebut the mental state element of the offense. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding Wright's conviction. See State v. Carlos, 199 Ariz. 273, ¶ 2, 17 P.3d 118, 120 (App.2001). On January 27, 2005, Keith Deering went to lunch with some friends at a restaurant in Mesa, Arizona. After leaving the restaurant, Deering discovered that his Ford pickup truck was missing. He contacted the Mesa Police Department and reported the vehicle as stolen. Two days later, while on patrol in Ajo, Pima County Deputy Sheriff Kenneth Atwell conducted a license plate check on a Ford pickup truck. When he learned the vehicle had been reported stolen, Deputy Atwell coordinated with other deputies to stop the vehicle. Once deputies initiated the stop, the vehicle immediately pulled over. They instructed the driver, later identified as Wright, to turn off the ignition and place the keys on the roof. Wright responded by placing a screwdriver on the roof of the vehicle. He was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. While officers were securing the truck, they observed damage to the door lock and ignition column.

¶ 3 Sergeant Gary Chatham gave Wright Miranda¹ warnings and, after Wright waived his rights, questioned him about how he came to be in possession of the vehicle. Wright told Chatham that someone named Hector had approached and offered to pay him $300 to drive the vehicle to Mexico. After Chatham asked him whether he knew the truck was stolen, Wright stated, "[Y]eah, I thought it could be stolen." Deputy Atwell then drove Wright to Tucson in his patrol car. At trial, Atwell testified that he and Wright had discussed the circumstances surrounding Wright's possession of the truck during the drive to Tucson. During that discussion, Wright stated he did not think it was stolen.

¶ 4 A grand jury indicted Wright on one count each of theft of means of transportation, burglary in the third degree, and possession of burglary tools. Wright's first trial ended in a mistrial when a defense witness improperly testified that Wright had suffered brain damage at birth. At his second trial, Wright again sought to introduce expert testimony that had been precluded at the first trial that his "mental capacity was lowered and that he is a naive-type of person." The trial court found that the first trial judge had properly rejected the testimony as an attempt to raise an improper diminished capacity defense, and that ruling was the law of the case. Wright moved for a judgment of acquittal after the state rested its case and again at the end of trial. The court initially denied the motion, but granted Wright's renewed motion on the burglary charge. The jury found Wright guilty of theft of means of transportation and not guilty of possession of burglary tools. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5 On appeal, Wright asserts that the trial court's exclusion of his expert's testimony violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and constitutes reversible error. Generally, we review a trial court's determination on the admissibility of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378, 381, 728 P.2d 248, 251 (1986). However, if the admissibility of the testimony is a question of law, we review its admissibility de novo. Id. In this case, the issue is whether the testimony is admissible as "observation evidence" under Clark v. Arizona, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 2709, 2724, 165 L.Ed.2d 842 (2006), to rebut the mental state element of the offense. Although this is a question of law, Wright failed to make this argument at trial. Thus, although we review the trial court's ruling de novo, we will not reverse its decision unless it constitutes fundamental, prejudicial error. See State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, n. 2, 115 P.3d 618, 620 n. 2, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 762, 163 L.Ed.2d 592 (2005).

DISCUSSION

¶ 6 Wright argues, as the sole basis for challenging his conviction, the trial court erroneously excluded expert testimony that he did not have the mental state necessary to commit the offense. A person commits theft of means of transportation, inter alia, by knowingly controlling another person's means of transportation "with the intent to permanently deprive the person of the means of transportation" or by "knowing or having reason to know that the property is stolen." A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(1) and (5). To rebut the mens rea or mental state element of the offense, Wright attempted to introduce psychiatric expert testimony about the results of his intelligence/psychological evaluation.

¶ 7 Wright asked the trial court to reconsider the ruling in the first trial precluding the expert testimony and to allow him "to proceed with a diminished capacity defense." In support of the motion, Wright stated the expert would testify about the "numerous mental deficiencies he diagnosed after evaluating Mr. Wright. These deficiencies included Mr. Wright's low IQ, his deficient test results including but not limited to his common sense, difficulties with detail and his child-like aspirations for the future." Wright acknowledged the testimony had been precluded pursuant to State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 931 P.2d 1046 (1997). But he argued the ruling in Mott violated his due process rights "under both the Arizona and United States Constitutions because it prevent[ed] him from a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense."

¶ 8 In the alternative, Wright argued the proposed testimony was admissible to help the jury determine whether he formed the requisite mental state "at the time of the offense." He distinguished his case from Mott, arguing that "[i]n the Mott case the expert was going to testify that the defendant could never form the prerequisite intent. In this case our expert was going to testify that [Wright's] mental capacity was lowered and that he is a naive-type of person." The state argued the first trial judge had "already ruled in favor of the State regarding the requested testimony," and that ruling was "the law of the case." The state also characterized the proposed testimony as supporting "a diminished capacity defense which is expressly prohibited under Arizona law." The trial court agreed and precluded the testimony.

¶ 9 As a preliminary matter, "[t]he courts of this state are bound by the decisions of [the Arizona Supreme Court] and do not have the authority to modify or disregard [its] rulings." State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, n. 4, 86 P.3d 370, 374 n. 4 (2004). Therefore, to the extent Wright directly challenges the court's ruling in Mott, we reject his argument. And, in any event, the United States Supreme Court has approved the central holding of Mott, concluding that Arizona's exclusion of the diminished capacity defense does not violate due process. Clark, ___ U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2716.

¶ 10 In Mott, our supreme court rejected the diminished capacity defense and held testimony of a mental health professional about a defendant's mental incapacity owing to a mental disease or defect is only admissible in the context of an insanity defense. 187 Ariz. at 540-41, 931 P.2d at 1050-51. In the absence of an insanity defense, the court concluded such evidence is inadmissible to challenge the element of mens rea, that is, what mental state the state must prove the defendant had for the crime to be committed. Id. at 541, 931 P.2d at 1051. But the court noted that its holding did not preclude defendants from offering testimony about their relevant behavioral tendencies and limited its exclusion of evidence to that which concerns a defendant's actual capacity to form a certain mental state. Id. at 544, 931 P.2d at 1054 (distinguishing the facts of the case before it from those in State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. 32, 628 P.2d 580 (1981)).²

¶ 11 Wright relies on Clark, which was decided while this appeal was pending.³ In Clark, the Court considered the three different categories of evidence "with a potential bearing" on the mental state element of an offense: observation, mental disease, and mental capacity. ___ U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2724-25. "Observation evidence" includes lay and expert testimony "from those who observed what [a defendant] did and heard what he said." Id. It includes testimony of an expert witness about a defendant's "tendency to think in a certain way and his behavioral characteristics." Id. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2724. "[M]ental-disease evidence" consists of opinions that the defendant "suffer[s] from a mental disease with features described by the witness." Id. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2725. And "capacity evidence" is evidence of a defendant's "ability to form a certain state of mind or motive, understand or evaluate one's actions, or control them." Id. at ___ n. 7, ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2720 n. 7, 2725. The Court held observation evidence, even from an expert, is admissible to show a defendant did not...