State of Arizona v. David James Yonkman
312 P.3d 1135, 233 Ariz. 369 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a trial court admits evidence of a defendant's prior alleged criminal acts for which the defendant was acquitted, it is an abuse of discretion to preclude the defendant from introducing evidence of the acquittal if the jury is likely to speculate about the outcome of the prior proceedings.
Facts:
- In March 2010, David Yonkman's fifteen-year-old stepdaughter, C., told her mother, Kelly, that Yonkman had touched her inappropriately.
- Kelly reported the allegations to the police, but C. later recanted.
- When initially detained by police, Yonkman invoked his right to counsel.
- After his release, Yonkman spoke with his wife, Kelly, and then voluntarily called a detective to arrange an interview at a police station.
- During the police interview, Yonkman admitted to touching C. on her breasts and vagina.
- At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from two of C.'s friends who alleged that Yonkman had molested them during sleepovers.
- Yonkman had previously been tried and acquitted of the charges related to C.'s friends.
Procedural Posture:
- David Yonkman was charged in Arizona trial court with sexual abuse and sexual conduct with a minor.
- Yonkman's pre-trial motion to suppress his confession was denied.
- The trial court admitted evidence of prior acts for which Yonkman had been acquitted, but precluded Yonkman from introducing evidence of the acquittals.
- A jury found Yonkman guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to imprisonment and lifetime probation.
- Yonkman appealed his conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The case was heard by the Arizona Supreme Court on a separate issue and then remanded back to the Court of Appeals to resolve the remaining issues, including the evidentiary ruling on the prior acquittals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by precluding evidence that a defendant was acquitted of prior alleged acts when testimony about those same acts is admitted against the defendant at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Eckerstrom, J.
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by precluding evidence of a defendant's prior acquittal when evidence of the underlying acts is admitted. The court held that while an acquittal does not categorically bar the introduction of the underlying conduct under Rule 404 (due to different standards of proof), precluding evidence of the acquittal itself creates a high risk of juror confusion and unfair prejudice. When the jury hears detailed evidence of prior allegations, including references to previous testimony and court proceedings, they will naturally speculate about the outcome. Hiding the acquittal may lead them to incorrectly assume a prior conviction, which is detrimental to the defendant. Furthermore, precluding the acquittal can improperly limit the defendant's ability to cross-examine witnesses about their potential bias or motive stemming from the prior trial. Although the trial court erred, the error was deemed harmless in this case because Yonkman's own confession to the charged crime corroborated the victim's testimony, making it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies Arizona's approach to admitting 'acquitted conduct' evidence, aligning with a modern, fairness-oriented view. It establishes that while the underlying conduct may be admissible under a lower standard of proof (clear and convincing evidence), the fact of the acquittal is often crucial contextual information for the jury. The ruling effectively creates a presumption that if the prior acts are admitted in a way that suggests a formal proceeding occurred, the acquittal should also be admitted to prevent jury speculation and unfair prejudice. This holding will guide trial courts to take a more holistic view, balancing the probative value of prior acts against the defendant's right to a fair trial free from misleading, incomplete evidence.
Unlock the full brief for State of Arizona v. David James Yonkman