State v. Terrazas
944 P.2d 1194, 250 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3, 189 Ariz. 580 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Arizona criminal cases, before a trial court may admit evidence of a defendant's other bad acts under Rule 404(b), the proponent of the evidence must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the prior acts were committed and that the defendant committed them.
Facts:
- On May 20, 1994, Timothy Sterns' truck was stolen from his place of employment.
- Six days later, a police detective, with permission from Mario Amado Terrazas, searched Terrazas's property.
- During the search, the detective found the frame and glove box of Sterns' stolen truck, both containing the vehicle identification number.
- Terrazas claimed that the vehicle parts had been left on his property by an unknown individual while he was away for four days.
- During the investigation of Sterns' truck, police also found library books on Terrazas's property that had been inside Jennifer Vasquez's truck when it was stolen two years earlier, in 1992.
- In a separate, earlier incident, parts from Tommy Medina's stolen truck were located on Terrazas's property after a friend of Medina saw someone driving the truck onto the property.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Mario Amado Terrazas with felony theft in the trial court.
- Terrazas waived his right to a jury and proceeded with a bench trial.
- The trial court admitted evidence of Terrazas's alleged prior bad acts, applying a standard less than clear and convincing evidence.
- The trial court found Terrazas guilty, suspended his sentence, and placed him on probation.
- Terrazas, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the correct standard for admitting prior bad acts was preponderance of the evidence, as articulated in Huddleston v. United States.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted Terrazas's petition for review.
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 the admission of a defendant's prior bad acts in a criminal case require proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the acts, rather than by a preponderance of the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Moeller, Justice
Yes, the admission of a defendant's prior bad acts in a criminal case requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. The court explicitly rejects the lower 'preponderance of the evidence' standard from Huddleston v. United States and reaffirms its precedent from State v. Hughes. The court clarifies that the standard in Hughes, 'substantial evidence sufficient to take the case to a jury,' requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. This heightened standard is necessary because of the high probability of unfair prejudice that arises from admitting evidence of prior bad acts, which could lead a jury to convict based on character rather than on evidence for the charged crime. The court emphasized that Arizona is not bound by the U.S. Supreme Court's non-constitutional interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence when construing its own state rules. Applying this standard, the court found that the library books discovered on Terrazas's property did not constitute clear and convincing proof that he was involved in the theft of the Vasquez truck.
Dissenting - Martone, Justice
No, the admission of a defendant's prior bad acts should only require proof sufficient for a jury to reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the act. The dissent argues the majority misinterprets State v. Hughes, which it contends established a standard equivalent to surviving a directed verdict, not the higher 'clear and convincing' standard. The dissent asserts that the Huddleston preponderance standard is consistent with Arizona's Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 104(b) regarding conditionally relevant evidence. It maintains that the existing rules—requiring a proper purpose (Rule 404(b)), balancing probative value against prejudice (Rule 403), and allowing for limiting instructions (Rule 105)—are sufficient to protect defendants from unfair prejudice, making the majority's heightened standard unnecessary and an obstacle to admitting relevant evidence.
Concurring - Jones, Vice Chief Justice
Yes, the 'clear and convincing' standard is the correct standard of proof. The concurrence agrees fully with the majority and writes separately to refute the dissent's interpretation of State v. Hughes. It argues that Hughes equated 'substantial evidence' with 'clear and convincing,' thereby rejecting any lesser standard like preponderance. The concurrence stresses that the Rules of Evidence do not specify a standard of proof, leaving the court to establish one. Given the common law's deep-rooted concern about the prejudicial impact of 'other crimes' evidence, a heightened standard is necessary to protect the integrity of the trial process and ensure substantial justice for the accused.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant protection for criminal defendants in Arizona by setting a higher standard of proof for the admission of prior bad acts evidence than the federal standard. By rejecting the 'preponderance of the evidence' test from Huddleston, the Arizona Supreme Court created a notable split with federal courts and prioritized safeguarding against unfair prejudice over the broad admissibility of relevant evidence. This ruling places a greater burden on prosecutors, requiring them to present stronger, more direct evidence to a judge that a defendant committed prior wrongs before that evidence can be presented to a jury. Consequently, it limits the state's ability to use a defendant's past to imply a propensity to commit the charged crime and forces the focus of the trial more squarely on the evidence of the crime itself.
