NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER LEE SAUNDERS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0416

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-001000-001

The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Craig W. Soland

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Legal Defender's Office, Phoenix

By Cynthia D. Beck

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. SAUNDERS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Christopher Lee Saunders appeals his conviction of armed 

robbery, a Class 2 felony. For the reasons that follow, we affirm his 

conviction and resulting sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Saunders entered a sandwich shop and placed a plastic bag 

and a hand-written note torn from a spiral notebook on the counter.1 The 

note read, "I have a gun, put the money in the bag and step away, nobody 

dies." Before the owner had a chance to read the note, however, Saunders 

pulled out what appeared to be a gun, and the owner gave Saunders $200 

from the cash register. Saunders left the restaurant on a white BMX bike 

with black rims and black handlebars. 

¶3 Responding officers interviewed the restaurant owner and 

reviewed restaurant surveillance video footage. After identifying Saunders 

as a suspect, officers obtained and executed a search warrant for his

apartment. Officers seized a black hand brace, a pair of men's dark 

sunglasses, a backpack, a long-sleeved black shirt and a white and gray 

BMX bicycle with black handlebars, all of which were consistent with the 

surveillance footage. Officers also seized a small spiral-bound notebook 

from inside the backpack; in the notebook was a page of paper from which 

a fragment had been torn.

¶4 At trial, a forensic document examiner testified about papermatching and handwriting analyses he conducted on the stick-up note. The 

document examiner opined that the fragment of a sheet of paper on which 

the note was written had been ripped from the spiral-bound notebook 

found in the backpack in Saunders's apartment. He also testified that there 

were indications Saunders wrote the note but he could not conclusively 

 

1 We view the trial evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the jury's verdict. State v. Nelson, 214 Ariz. 196, 196, ¶ 2 (App. 2007).
STATE v. SAUNDERS

Decision of the Court

3

identify Saunders as the writer. A jury found Saunders guilty, and the 

superior court sentenced him to 15.75 years' imprisonment and $200 in 

restitution. Saunders timely appealed; we have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016), 13-4031 (2016) and 

-4033(A)(1) (2016).2

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Principles.

¶5 Saunders argues the superior court should not have admitted 

the document examiner's testimony because his opinions did not comport 

with the requirements of Arizona Rule of Evidence 702. That rule governs 

admission of expert testimony, and states:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, 

experience, training, or education may testify in the form of 

an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized 

knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the 

evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and 

methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods 

to the facts of the case.

¶6 We review the superior court's admission of expert testimony 

for an abuse of discretion. State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590, 594, ¶ 13 

(2014). The superior court judge serves as "gatekeeper," determining 

whether the proposed expert testimony is relevant and admissible, but "it 

is the province of the jury to determine the weight and credibility of the 

testimony[.]" State ex rel. Montgomery v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 289, 298, ¶¶ 19-20 

(App. 2014) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid. 702 cmt. to 2012 amendment). "We 

review the interpretation of a court rule de novo." Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 

at 592, ¶ 4.

 

2 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute's current version.
STATE v. SAUNDERS

Decision of the Court

4

B. Paper-Matching Analysis.

¶7 Saunders argues that, in violation of industry standards, the 

paper-matching analysis was conducted after the note had been subjected

to other forensic testing. In support of his argument, Saunders points to 

guidelines for the analysis of paper-matching issued by the American 

Society for Testing and Materials ("ASTM"). That publication, titled 

"Standard Guide for Physical Match of Paper Cuts, Tears, and Perforations 

in Forensic Document Examinations," states: "The results of prior storage, 

handling, testing, or chemical processing (for example, for latent prints) can 

interfere with the examination of certain characteristics. Whenever 

possible, document examinations should be conducted prior to any 

chemical processing. Items should be handled appropriately to avoid 

compromising subsequent examinations." The document examiner 

testified the note was slightly discolored when he examined it because it 

had been already tested for latent fingerprints. Saunders argues that by 

examining the note after it had been tested for prints, the document 

examiner failed to follow the ASTM guidelines, thereby rendering the

testimony inadmissible under Rule 702(d).

¶8 Rule 702(d) requires the superior court to determine whether 

an expert has reliably applied the applicable standards in formulating his 

or her opinion. See State v. Bernstein, 237 Ariz. 226, 229, ¶ 13 (2015). But the 

court is not required to exclude expert testimony based on any slight 

variation from standards. "Rule 702 contemplates that expert testimony can 

be 'shaky' yet admissible. . . . Errors in the application of a generally reliable 

methodology, therefore, should not serve to exclude evidence unless they 

are so serious as to render the results themselves unreliable." Id. at ¶¶ 14-

15.

¶9 Contrary to Saunders's argument, the ASTM guidelines 

suggest but do not require that paper-matching testing be performed before 

the evidence is subjected to any other analyses. Although the guidelines 

caution that other testing may affect the paper-matching analysis, "not all 

errors in the application of reliable principles or methods will warrant 

exclusion." Id. at ¶ 14. More importantly, the examiner here testified that 

the discoloration of the paper did not affect his analysis: "[A]s far as the tear 

match examination, the previous latent print processing did not hinder that 

exam whatsoever."

¶10 Saunders also argues that the paper-matching testimony 

should have been excluded under Rule 702(a) because the testimony was 

not helpful to the jury. Saunders contends that because the examiner 
STATE v. SAUNDERS

Decision of the Court

5

admitted that a lay person could have conducted the same analysis, the 

testimony did nothing to aid the jury in understanding the evidence. 

Contrary to Saunders's contention, however, the document examiner 

explained that although a lay person could have put the two pieces of paper 

together "like a jigsaw puzzle[,]" he also testified he used special equipment 

and expertise in performing his analysis. The document examiner 

explained that he used a high-magnification camera that allowed him to 

look at the individual tears and match up the paper fibers. The examiner's 

testimony involved specialized knowledge and aided the jury in 

determining whether the note had come from the notebook recovered at 

Saunders's apartment.

¶11 For these reasons, the superior court did not abuse its 

discretion in admitting the paper-matching testimony.

C. Handwriting Analysis.

¶12 Saunders further argues insufficient data supported the 

document examiner's handwriting analysis as required by Rule 702(b). He 

also argues the examiner's opinion was too vague to be helpful to the jury 

as required by Rule 702(a).

¶13 The document examiner explained that in analyzing whether 

the writing on the note belonged to Saunders, he used a nine-point scale, 

ranging from one ("conclusive elimination") to nine ("conclusive 

identification") with five ("inconclusive") in the middle. After comparing 

the note to a sample of Saunders's handwriting, the document examiner 

opined there were indications the two samples were written by the same 

person, concluding the identification was a six on the nine-point scale. At 

trial, the document examiner explained that the limited sample size and 

overwriting of letters on the note were the most significant factors limiting 

his ability to make a conclusive identification. Saunders argues that the 

examiner's inconclusive opinion, undermined by the limited sample size 

and overwriting, should not have been admitted because it was neither 

helpful to the jury nor supported by sufficient data.

¶14 Notwithstanding Saunders's arguments, sufficient data 

supported the document examiner's handwriting analysis. The examiner 

testified, "[T]he amount of writing on the questioned note was limited but 

there was still enough there to do an examination and a comparison 

between the questioned note and the known writing I had of Mr. Saunders." 

Although the examiner's final conclusion was less than conclusive, he was 

able to point out similarities between the note and Saunders's writing 
STATE v. SAUNDERS

Decision of the Court

6

sample. As the court noted when it denied Saunders's motions to exclude 

the testimony, "The concerns noted go greater to the weight of the evidence, 

to be determined by the trier of fact, rather than to its admissibility."

¶15 Because the document examiner had sufficient data to 

conduct the handwriting analysis and because the testimony aided the jury 

in deciding whether Saunders had written the stick-up note, the superior 

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony. As the 

superior court found, Saunders's arguments concerning the certainty of the 

examiner's conclusion went to the weight the jury could give to the 

examiner's testimony, not to its admissibility.

CONCLUSION

¶16 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Saunders's conviction 

and sentence.