I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
T HE S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA, A ppel l ee,

v. R O B E R T WI L L I A M H A R L O W, A p p e llan t. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C R 2007- 0368

DEPA RTM ENT A O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C R
- 20063961 H onor abl e R i char d N i chol s , J udge

AFFI RM ED
T er r yG oddar d, A r i zona A t t or neyG ener al B yK ent E. C at t ani and R ob ertA
. W al sh
H a rrie tte P . L e v itt P h o e n ix A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

T ucs on A t t or neyforA ppel l ant
P E L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge. ¶1 A ft era j ur yt r i al , R ober tH ar l ow w as acqui t t ed of s econd- degr ee bur gl ar ybut convi ct ed of the l es s eri ncl uded off ens e of f i r s t - degr ee c ri m i nal t r es pas s . O n appea l , he N O V 24 2008 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

c o n ten d s th e trial c o u rt e rre d b ya m e n d in g th e v e rd ict f o rm to a llo w th e ju ry , sh o rtlya f ter it had r et i r ed to del i ber at e, t o cons i deran i nt err ogat or yon w het hert he t r es pas s offe ns e had b e e n s e x u a l l ymo t i v a t e d
. F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we a f f i r m. Backg r ound ¶2 I n O ct ober2006, H arlow w as char ged w i t h s econd- degr ee bur gl aryforan offe ns e t hathad bee n comm i t t ed i n J anuary2000. T he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed att r i al t hats he had
aw oken i n t he mi ddl e of the ni ghtand di s cover ed t hats om eone ha d ent er ed herapar t m ent
a n d ta k en h er p u rse. I n a g u est b ed roo m , p o li ce o ff icers f o u n d a p air of

the v ict im ’s
un d e r wea rn e x tt o a u s e d c o n d o m w i t h Har l o w’ s s e me n o n i t . And i n a n a l l e yb e h i n d t he
v ictim ’s a p a rtm e n t, th e yf o u n d se v e ra l cig a re ttes c o n tain in g h is d e o x yrib o n u c leic a c id (D N A ). ¶3 A t th e c lose o f e v iden ce , the c o u rt init ial lysu b m it ted to the ju rya sin g le fo rm of ver di ctt hati ncl uded s econd- degr ee bur gl aryand t he l es s eri ncl uded off ens e of c r i m i nal t r es pas s . T he cour texpl ai ned t o t he j ur or s t hatt heyw er e t o addr es s t he ques t i on of w het her H ar l ow had comm i t t ed cr i m i nal t r es pas s onl yi f t heyfound H ar l ow notgui l t yof s econddegr ee bur gl ar yori f t heyw er e unabl e t o r each a u nani m ous ver di cton t hatchar ge. T he
ver di ctfor m i ns t ruct ed t hati f t he jury fo u n d H ar l ow gui l t yof t he bur gl arychar ge, i tw as
r equi r ed t o ans w ert he ques t i on w het her“the off ense w as comm i t t ed fort he purpos e of
s exual gr at i fi cat i on. ” Thatpor t i on of t he ver di ctfor m t hatper t ai ned t o t he l es s eri ncl uded offe ns e of c r i m i nal t r es pas s di d not i ncl ude such a n i nt err ogat or y . T he t r i al cour tas ked t he3

par t i e s whe t h e rt h e yh a d a n ya d d i t i o n s o rc o r r e c t i o n s t o t h e f o r m of v e r d i c t . Both t he pr os ecut orand def

ens e couns el r es ponded t heyhad none. ¶4 S h o rt lyaft ert he j ur yhad r et i r ed t o del i ber at e, t he pr os ecut ors t at ed s he had for got t en t o r eques tt he “s exual m ot i vat i on” i nt err ogat or yon t he ver di ct for m for t he l es s er i ncl uded off

ens e of c r i m i nal t r es pas s . O ver H ar l ow ’ s obj ect i on t hat i t w as t oo l at e t o m odi fy t he ver di ctfor m beca us e “the j ur y ’ s ou t, ” the tr ia l cour tbr oughtt he j ur or s back i nt o t he
cour t r oom , br i efl yr ei ns t ruct ed t hem, and pr ovi ded them w i t h a re vi s ed ver di ctfor m , w hi ch i ncl uded t he s ame i nt er r ogat or y r egar di ng s exual m ot i vat i on for bot h t he gr eat erand l es s er offe ns es . T he j ur yfound H ar l ow gui l t yof cr i m i nal t r es pas s and found t he cr i m e had be en
comm i t t ed fors exual gr at i fi cat i on. D i s cus s i on ¶5 O n ap p ea l, H arlow arg u es t h e t ri al co u rterred in m o d ify ing the v erd ictfo rm aft ert he jury h ad re t i r ed t o del i ber at e. H e cont ends t hi s cour tm us t , t her efor e, vaca t e t he por t i on of t he j udgm entof convi ct i on t hatr efl ect s he had c om m i t t ed t he off ens e w i t h a
s exual m ot i vat i on, pur s uantt o A
. R
. S. § 13- 118, and t he t r i al cour t ’ s r es ul t i ng or derr equi r i ng hi m t o r egi s t eras a s ex off ender i n acc or dance w i t h A
. R
. S. § 13- 3821( C )
. W e r evi ew foran abus e of di s cr et i on t he t r i al cour t ’ s gr ant i ng of t he pr os ecut or ’ s r eques tt o r evi s e the ver di ct f o rm a f te r t h e ju ry h a d re tir e d to d e lib e ra te . C f
. St at e v. R am i r ez , 178 A r i z. 1 1 6 , 1 2 6 , 871 P .2 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (1 9 9 4 ) (“ T h e d e c isio n to f u rth e r in stru c t a ju ry[ a f ter it h a s re tired to d e lib e ra te] o n a m a tter . . . is w it h in th e trial c o u rt’s d isc re tio n .”); St at e v. Fer nandez , 216See J ar vis v. For d Mot orC o. , 2 8 3 F .3 d 3 3 , 5 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); P au v. Y osem i t e P ark 1 & Curr y C o. , 9 2 8 F .2 d 8 8 0 , 8 9 1 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); Mo rr is v . F la ig , 511 F. Supp. 2d 282, 307 n .1 6 (E .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 7 ); s ee al s o Mi l l er v. Her nandez , 5 2 0 N
. W
. 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 9 -72 (S
. D
. 1 9 9 4 ). A l t ho ug h H arl ow al so ci t es Savi gnac v. B uchanan , 9 9 9 F
. 2 d 5 4 4 , 1 9 9 3 W L 2 6 5 1 3 2 (9th C ir
. J ul y16, 1993) , w e do notcons i deri tbeca us e i ti s unpubl i s h ed an d m aynot , t her efor e, be c ite d in A ri z o n a a s h a v in g p re c e d e n tia l a u th o ri ty. See B urke v. A ri z. Stat e R et . Sys. , 206 A ri z. 26 9 , n . 6 , 7 7 P
. 3 d 4 4 4 , 4 4 8 n . 6 (A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). 4 A r i z. 545, ¶¶ 16- 17, 169 P. 3d 641, 647- 48 (A p p . 2007) ( no err ori n t r i al cour t ’ s “al l ow i ng
a d d itio n a l c lo s in g a rg u m e n t” o n is s u e o f p re m e d ita tio n to h e lp r e s o l v e “ ju ry c o n f

u s io n ,” in a sm u c h a s “ trial c o u rt h a s d isc re tio n in re sp o n d in g to q u e stio n s to a ss ist th e ju ryin p erf o rm ing it s fu n cti o n ”). ¶6 R el y i ng pr i m ar i l yon fede r al ci vi l cas es , H ar l ow ar gues t hat“a pa r t yw ai ves 1 its rig h t to d e m a n d su b m iss io n o f a sp e c ial v e rd ict q u e stio n o n a n iss u e , u n les s it o b jec ts to the f ail u re to su b m itthe q u esti o n b ef o re the jury reti res.” W e a g ree w ith the s tat e, ho w ev er, t hatt hos e dec i s i ons ar e i nappos i t e beca us e t hey “w er e uni for m l y governed by Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 49( a) ( 3) and 51, nei t herof w hi ch i s appl i cabl e t o cr i m i nalpr os ecut i ons i n A r iz ona . ” A nd, as t he st at e al s o poi nt s out , “no A r i zona cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on, cr i m i nal
s t atut e, rul e of cr i m i nal pr ocedur e, or j udi ci al opi ni on pr ohi bi t s t r i al j udges fr om cor r ect i ng
u n n o tic e d o m is s io n s o r e rr o rs in v e rd ic t f o rm s w h ile th e ju ry is s till d e lib e ra tin g .” ¶7 A lth o u g h so m e o f A riz o n a ’s c rim in a l procedu re rules rel at e t o fo rm s o f v e rd ict,
none s uppor t s H ar l ow ’ s pos i t i on or ot her w i s e pre cl udes t he act i on t he t r i al cour tt ook her e. R ul e 21. 3( c) , A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. , pr ovi des t hat a par t y m ay not “as s i gn as err or on appea l t he
c o u rt’s
. . . sub m i ssi on or t he fa i l ure t o sub m i ta form of v erdi ctun l ess the p artyobj ects5

t her et o befor e t he j ur y r et i r es t o cons i der i t s ver di ct , s t at i ng di s t i nct l y t he m at t ert o w hi ch t he par t y o b j e c t s a n d t h e g r o u n d s o f h i s o r h e r o b j e c t i o n . ” Th a t ru l e d o e s n o t a p p l y her e, how ever , beca us e t he s t at e di d notas s i gn anyerr oron appea l r el at i ng t o t he form of ver di ct or any t hing el se. N or d oes R ule 23 , A ri z. R
. C ri m . P
. , rel at i ng t o v erdi ct s i n cri m i nal cas es, p roh ibittr ial co u rt s fro m takin g im m ed iat e action , eit h er sua sp o n te o r, as h ere , o n a p arty ’s
r eques t , t o cor r ect an er r oneous for m of ver di ct even aft er t he j ur y has r et i r ed t o del i ber at e. ¶8 M or eover , § 13- 118( A ) per m i t s t he s t at e t o “fi l e a spe ci al al l egat i on of s exual
m ot i vat i on i f s uffi ci entadmi s s i bl e evi d en ce ex ist s t hatw oul d j us t i fya fi ndi ng of s exual
m ot i vat i on bya r eas onabl e and obj ect i ve fi nderof fa ct . ” Pursua n t t o t hats t atut e, w hen H ar l ow w as i ndi ct ed, t he s t at e s peci fi cal l yal l eged thathe had comm i t t ed t he offens e “f ort he p u rp o se o f

se x u a l g ra tific a tio n .” B e f o re ju ryse lec tio n , the trial c o u rt a n d th e p a rties b rie f ly d isc u ss e d th e sta te’ s s e x u a l-m o tiv a tio n a lleg a tio n a n d e ss e n tiallya g re e d th a t is su e w o u ld

“ sim p ly [ b e ] ha n d led b y a n in ter ro g a to ry ” o n th e v e rd ict fo rm a n d th a t th e c o u r t w o u ld addr es s t hat t opi c duri ng j ur y s el ect i on, w hi ch i t t hen di d. O n t hi s r ecor d, w e agr ee w i t h t he
s t at e t hatH ar l ow “not onl y had not i ce of t he St at e’ s s exual
- m ot i vat i on al l egat i on s i nce the
r etur n of hi s i ndi ct m ent , but al s o knew fr om t he par t i es ’ di s cus s i on pr ece di ng j ur ys el ect i on t hat th e S t at e had a s ked forver di ctfor m s t hati ncl uded a s peci al i nt err ogat or yon s exual g ra tif ic a tio n .” ¶9 I n addi t i on, w hen, as her e, t he s t at e has pr oper l y fi l ed “a s peci al al l egat i on of
se x u a l m o tiv a tio n ,” § 1 3 -1 1 8 (B ) re q u ire s th e trier o f f a c t to “ f in d a sp e c ial v e r d ic t a s to6

w h ethe r t h e d ef

en d an t com m it ted th e o ff en se w ith a se x u al m o ti v ati o n . ” T h e tri al co u rt ’s im m e d iate , rem e d ial a c tio n in re v isin g th e v e rd ict f o rm a t th e sta te’ s re q u e st c o m p lied w ith t hats t atut or ym andat e. A nd, cont r aryt o H ar l ow ’ s as s erti o n , the cour t ’ s act i on di d not “gi v[e] t he pr os ecut oran unfa i radvant age a ft er[s he] had w ai ved her req ues tfora s peci al in te rr o g a to ry.” ¶10 T he fact t hat t he j ury al ready had ret i red to deli berat e w hen t he p rosecut or fi rs t not i ced the omi s s i on and ca l l ed t he m at t er t o t he tr i al cour t ’ s at t ent i on di d notpr ecl ude t he
cour tfr om t aki ng t he corr ect i ve ac t i on i tdi d. “[T] r i al j udges have ‘ i n h ere n t pow erand di s cr et i on t o adopts peci al , i ndi vi dual i zed pr ocedur es des i gned t o pr om ot e t he ends of j us t i ce in e a c h c a se th a t co m e s b e f o re th e m ’ a s lo n g a s s u c h p r o c e d u re s a re n o t in c o n sis ten t w ith
s t atut or y or cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons orot herrul es of t he court . ” Fer nandez , 216 A r i z. 545, ¶ 1 6 , 1 6 9 P .3 d a t 6 4 7 , quot i ng Hedl und v. Sheldon , 173 A r i z. 143, 146, 840 P. 2d 1008, 1011 (1 9 9 2 ); see al

so A riz . C o n st. a rt. V I, § 2 7 (“ N o c a u se sh a ll b e re v e rse d f o r te c h n ica l er ro r in pl eadi ngs or pr ocee di ngs w hen upon t he w hol e cas e i t s hal l appea r t hat s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce ha s b e e n d o n e .”); c

f. A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. 22. 3 ( t r i al cour tm ayr es pond t o j ur yi nqui r i es dur i ng del i b e r a t i o n s b y “ r e c a l l [ i n g j u r o r s ] t o t h e c o u r t r o o m” a n d g i v i n g a d d i t i o n a l i n s t ru c t i ons or h a v in g tes tim o n yre a d ); St at e v. G ovan , 154 A r i z. 611, 612- 14, 744 P. 2d 712, 713- 15 ( A pp. 1987) ( no er r ori n t r i al cour t ’ s mi d
- d e l i b e r a t i o n s r e v i s i on of def ect i ve s el f- defe ns e i ns t ruct i on aft erpr os ecut oral er t ed cour tt o er r or ori n cour t ’ s r eca l l i ng j ur or s t o cour t r oom foramended instruction , ev en af

ter j u ryan n o u n ce d italread yh ad rea ch ed v erd ict ).7

¶11 O t hercour t s have rul ed t hata tr i al j udge maycor r ectm is t akes i n t he ver di ct for m aft ert he j u ry h as re t i r ed t o del i ber at e, w i t houtbei ng bar r ed fr om doi ng s o byw ai ver p ri n c ip le s . See, e. g. , S t a t e v . G i bbs , 730 N
. E
. 2d 1027, 1032- 33 ( O hi o C t . A pp. 1999) ( upholding tr ial co u rt ’s m id-d eli b era ti o n s co rrecti o n o f v erd ictfo rm that m ist akenl yr efl ect ed
w r ong cr im inal char ge, w her e cour tr econve ned j ur or s t o r ead s uppl ement al i ns t ruct i ons
c u rin g m ista k e ); C la

y to n v . S ta te , 840 P. 2d 18, 33- 34 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1992) ( uphol di ng t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o s ubm i tcor r ectver di ctform to j ur yforcons i der at i on i n s ent enci ng phas e of capi t al m ur der t r i al aft erj ur ynot i ced f i r s tver di ctfor m l i s t ed i ncor r ectaggr avat i ng
c i r c u ms t a n c e s )
. I n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h t h o s e a u t h o r i t i e s a n d f o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he t r i al cour t ’ s corr ect i on of t he ver di ctfor m her e. D i s posi t i on ¶12 H ar l ow ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence ar e af fi r m ed.

____________________________________ J O H N PE L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

____________________________________ J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge

____________________________________ J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge