Case Title: State v. Gortarez

Citation: 402 P.2d 992, 98 Ariz. 160

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1965-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
98 Ariz. 160 (1965) 402 P.2d 992 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Johnny GORTAREZ, Appellant. No. 1440. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. June 10, 1965. *161 Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Robert W. Pickrell, Former Atty. Gen., Stirley Newell, former Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Ross Anderson, Phoenix, for appellant. McFARLAND, Justice. Johnny Gortarez, appellant hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted and *162 sentenced for a term of not less than eight nor more than ten years in the Arizona State Prison for illegal sale of narcotics, in violation of A.R.S. § 36-1002.02, as amended. From this conviction and sentence defendant appeals. On April 16, 1963, defendant, while standing on the step of the home of one Gloria Medina, was approached by Jesse Saenz, Jr., an informer for the Arizona state liquor department. Saenz asked defendant if he had any "carga" (slang for heroin) for sale. Defendant replied affirmatively if Saenz had $10.00. Saenz stated he did not have any money, but that his friend "Mike" who was waiting in a parked car, did have ten dollars. Thereupon Saenz proceeded to the car, and received $10.00 from "Mike," who was in reality Roy Madrid, an agent of the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. Saenz returned, handed defendant the money, and received a small white paper which contained heroin. Saenz turned the paper over to Madrid, who departed immediately. Later, defendant was arrested. He was tried before a jury and convicted on September 30, 1963. Defendant cites ten propositions as error. He first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to remand the case for preliminary hearing. He claims that his waiver of the preliminary hearing, when he was indigent and without the aid of counsel, occurred at a "critical stage of the proceedings," and therefore he was denied his legal rights under the United States Constitution. In State v. Schumacher, April 1, 1965, 97 Ariz. 354, 400 P.2d 584, where defendant raised the same objection as in the instant case, contending that the preliminary hearing was a critical stage of the proceedings, we held: The record in the instant case does not reveal that defendant's rights were prejudiced *163 by not having counsel at the preliminary hearing; hence, this assignment of error is not well founded. Defendant claims the court erred by twice denying his motion for a bill of particulars. In his brief he does not set forth how he was prejudiced but relies solely on his contention that the granting of a bill of particulars was mandatory and not discretionary. Rule of Criminal Procedure No. 116, 17 A.R.S. provides: This rule makes a bill of particulars mandatory only when it is necessary under the conditions as set forth therein. The necessity thereof rests in the sound discretion of the court. State v. Benham, 58 Ariz. 129, 134, 118 P.2d 91, 93 (1941). The court, in denying the motion, found a bill of particulars was not necessary in the instant case, and did not abuse its discretion. State v. Colvin, 81 Ariz. 388, 307 P.2d 98 (1957) Defendant asserts as error the following testimony of the witness Saenz: Defendant claims that this testimony, coupled with the later testimony of Saenz and agent Madrid to the effect that they proceeded to 9th Street, observed defendant, and negotiated a sale of narcotics with him, constituted reversible error, viz., the representation to the jury of an innuendo of prior criminal activity on his part. Defendant claims under the rule set forth in State v. Kellington, 93 Ariz. 396, 381 P.2d 215 (1963), his rights were prejudiced, and that his motion for mistrial on this ground should have been granted. We do not agree with this contention. The portion of the transcript following the statements objected to by defendant reveals the following response by Saenz in answering the question as to whom he saw when he went to 9th Street. The record clearly shows that the person "trafficking narcotics" was some one other than defendant, and therefore any implication of prior criminal misconduct was directed to that other person. Under assignments No. 4 and No. 5 defendant contends that the court erred in its ruling in regard to the showing that the state's witness was addicted to heroin and therefore showing mental or physical defects; also in refusing to allow testimony as to how a drug addict became employed by the state on an issue of promised immunity from prosecution. To support his contention he referred specifically to the following cross-examination of the witness Saenz by defense counsel: During a conference out of the hearing of the jury, the following colloquy occurred: Defendant claims the court should have permitted the witness to answer the following question: This was undoubtedly a preliminary question, and the court should have permitted it to be answered. However, counsel for defendant, out of the hearing of the jury, stated that if allowed he would show that Saenz was an informer, and that he received $25 for every person informed on, and that he had been threatened by the police and was offered immunity if he would cooperate with them. The defendant was then permitted to examine Saenz as to his method of pay. Saenz testified that he was an informer for the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, Narcotics Division, and that he had been paid "$35.00 per head" that this arrangement of employment continued for about three months. After that he was paid a salary of $400 a month. He also testified that he had not been offered immunity in regard to any prosecution for testifying in this case, and that no police officer had threatened him if he did not testify; that he had told the police he had sold heroin in the past, but that there were no charges against him at the time of the trial. Also in the course of his testimony he admitted that he had used narcotics in the past. Counsel for defendant was permitted to ask Saenz if he had taken a "shot" of heroin on the morning of the trial. He answered that he had not, and stated that he quit taking heroin about the middle of December 1962, and he had not taken any since that time. Large latitude is permitted in cross-examination of a prosecuting witness to show motive, bias, and interest. State v. Burruell, 98 Ariz. 37, 401 P.2d 733 (May 5, 1965); State v. Little, 87 Ariz. 295, 350 P.2d 756, 86 A.L.R.2d 1120; State v. Aldrich, 75 Ariz. 53, 251 P.2d 653. It will be noted that, although the court sustained the objection to the preliminary question in regard to circumstances as to how Saenz came to be employed by the narcotics division, *166 and at first restricted the cross-examination to the use of narcotics, after the avowals, testimony was admitted regarding the circumstances of his employment and in regard to Saenz's use of narcotics. Under these circumstances the ruling of the court was not prejudicial error. Assignment of Error No. 6 was evidently abandoned by defendant, as the evidence objected to is not set forth, and he does not discuss it in his brief. Therefore, we did not consider this assignment. Assignment of Error No. 7 refers to the fact that the court, in a conference outside the hearing of the jury, sustained an objection to a question propounded by the prosecutor in his direct-examination of agent Madrid, ordered the answer stricken, but, upon resuming the trial before the jury, failed to instruct the jury to disregard the answer. The deputy county attorney asked agent Madrid, in referring to the white paper allegedly containing heroin: To which Madrid replied: Counsel for defendant then moved to strike the answer on the grounds that it was a jury question. The court then stated that the answer would be stricken, and that counsel could rephrase the question. The grounds for the request for striking the testimony was without merit; hence, the failure of the court to instruct the jury to disregard it was not error. The testimony of agent Madrid which defense objects to could easily be characterized as a vernacular description by the witness. State v. McCullough, 94 Ariz. 209, 382 P.2d 682 (1963). Assignment of Error No. 8 states that the trial court erred when it failed to grant a directed verdict of entrapment. Defendant asserts that the record clearly shows that the crime originated in the minds of agent Madrid and the informer Saenz. Defendant asserts that he was lured into the commission of the crime charged in order to prosecute him. This court has carefully reviewed the record, and we are unable to agree with the interpretation given the testimony by defendant. The record discloses that the informer Saenz merely afforded defendant an opportunity to commit the offense charged. Defendant willingly entered into the sale of the narcotics. He was not persuaded, or deceitfully lured into the commission of the offense. In State v. Hernandez, 96 Ariz. 28, 391 P.2d 586, we stated: Entrapment occurs only when there is undue persuasion, deceitful representation, or inducement to commit a crime which a defendant had not contemplated and would not otherwise have committed. State v. Hernandez, supra; Hoy v. State, 53 Ariz. 440, 90 P.2d 623; Lutfy v. United States, 198 F.2d 760, 33 A.L.R.2d 879. Defendant next contends that the court erred in indicating in recess that it would not permit Manuel Gortarez, defendant's brother, to testify regarding the fact that Saenz had stated to defendant's mother that he would not appear in court and testify against defendant. We have carefully examined the record, and we find defendant's mother did testify to the conversation she had with Saenz prior to the trial. When Manuel Gortarez started to testify the deputy county attorney asked for a recess and made a motion to strike Mrs. Gortarez's testimony regarding the conversation on the grounds that it was an attempt to impeach on a collateral matter. Counsel for defense argued that the testimony did show Saenz's motive for testifying. The court never ruled upon this matter, but stated that it would check the law during the recess, and that Manuel would not be allowed to testify in regard to the conversation on September 21st unless defense counsel went further and showed that it was material to the issue. Otherwise, it would be collateral. Upon resuming trial of the case before the jury, after the recess, defense counsel withdrew Manuel from the stand, and placed Alice Gortarez, defendant's sister, upon the stand to finish testimony which she had not completed. The rule that you cannot impeach on a collateral matter is well settled; however, defendant contends in his brief that the evidence was admissible for the reason that it showed motive, bias, and interest. Defendant's counsel, after withdrawal of defendant's brother, never again offered evidence or requested a ruling from the court, nor did he make an avowal or offer of evidence to show motive. This assignment is therefore unfounded. Under Assignment of Error No. 10, defendant contends that he was prejudiced by the following argument of the deputy county attorney and the ruling of the court on the objection thereto: We call attention to the fact that counsel for defendant during his argument had discussed the credibility of the state's witnesses, taking them up one by one, and had particularly singled out the narcotics agents. In the course of his argument he said: And, then, again referring to Johnny Gortarez: The court, in its discretion, overruled the objection on the basis that the door had been opened. The general ruling in regard to remarks of prosecuting attorneys is set forth in 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1108, p. 210 In Post v. State, 41 Ariz. 23, 15 P.2d 246, we stated: *169 In State v. Cusumano, Mo., 372 S.W.2d 860 (1963), the court stated: It will be noted that, as pointed out above, the defense attorney among other things had stated that there was "Not one thing said against this person, Johnny Gortarez." "* * * just one isolated sale, * * *" Taking into consideration the whole of the argument and the charges and counter-charges in regard to the credibility of the witnesses, we are of the opinion that the court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the statement was provoked. The court gave the following instruction to the jury in regard to the arguments of counsel: Although we do not approve the statement made by the deputy county attorney, on the basis of the record and the instruction of the court to the jury, we hold the statement of the deputy county attorney was not prejudicial error. Judgment affirmed. LOCKWOOD, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and UDALL and BERNSTEIN, JJ., concurring.