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. F RA NK J OS E P H S AR UL L O, A p p e llan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C R 2007- 0065

DEPA RTM ENT B 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
- 20053625 H onor abl e H ow ar d H ant m an, J udge

AFFI RM ED
T err yG oddar d, A r i zona A t t or neyG ener al B yK entE
. C at t ani and Laur a P. C hi as s on
La w O f f i c e o f Ri c h a r d Lu f

f , PLLC B yR i char d R
. L uff and Th e Di o d a t i La w Fi r m, P
. C. B yA n d re w D . D io d a ti T ucs on A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

T ucs on

T ucs on A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant
E S P I N O S A , J udge. N O V 13 2008 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

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

¶1 A ft era j ur yt r i al , Fr ank Sarul l o w as convi ct ed of tw o count s of fi r s t - deg r ee b u rg lar ya n d o n e c o u n t ea c h o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt an d th e f t. T h e trial c o u rt se n ten c e d h im to c o n c u rre n t, pr e su m p tiv e p riso n ter m s , th e lo n g e st o f w h ich w a s 1 0 .5 y e a rs. O n a p p e a l, Sarull o raises s ever al i s s ues t hathe cont ends r equi r e the r ever s al of hi s convi ct i ons and
s e n t e n c e s o re n t i t l e h i m t o a n e w t r i a l
. F o rt h e r e a s o n s b e l o w, we a f f i r m. Fac t ual and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound ¶2 W e view t he evidence i n t he l i gh t m ost favo rabl e t o sust ai ning t he co nv i ct i on s. See Stat e v. Mangum , 2 1 4 A riz
. 1 6 5 , ¶ 3 , 1 5 0 P .3 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 3 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). In 2 0 0 1 , S a ru llo and S. began a r om ant i c r el at i ons hi p. A ts om e poi nt , S. gave Saru ll o a k ey to herhous e,
w her e s he l i ved w i t h hert hi r t een- y ear - ol d daught er , L
. I n M ay2005, S. t ol d Sarul l o s he w as endi ng t hei rr el at i ons hi p. Sarul l o beca m e des pondentand t ol d S. he w as cons i der i ng s ui ci de and “pos s i bl yt aki ng [her ] w i t h hi m . ” A r ound t hi s t i m e, S. as ked Sarul l o t o r etur n t he key t o h e rh o u s e . H e d i d s o , b u th e f i r s tm a d e a c o p y o f

t h e k e y. ¶3 O n A u g u st 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , S . a w o k e a t ap p ro x im a tely3 :0 0 a .m . an d sa w S a ru llo stan d ing in th e do o rw ayo f h er b ed roo m . H e turn ed o n the o v erh ea d li g h t, w alke d tow ard h er, po i n t e d a g u n a t h e r , a n d d e ma n d e d s h e t e l l h i m wh y s h e h a d “ t r e a t e d [ h i m] s o b a dl y . ” S. p lea d e d , “[ N ]o , . . . d o n ’t d o th is” ; S a ru llo sa id h e h a d n o t d e c id e d w h e th e r h e w o u ld “ ju st k ill h im se lf ” o r w o u ld “ tak e [ h e r] w ith h im .” H e th e n to ld S . h e w a n ted to d isc u ss th e ir
r el at i ons hi p and w ant ed t o “w or k t hi ngs out . ” A fr ai d forherl i fe, S. pr om i s ed s he w oul d go t o r el at i ons hi p couns el i ng w i t h hi m and, i f he put dow n t he gun, s he w oul d notcal l t he pol i ce.3

Sarul l o l ai d t he gun on S. ’ s bed and l eftthe h o u se. S. s aw t hatt he gun w as her s
— s he had
s t or ed i ton t he t op s hel f of he rl i nen cl os et

— and thati tw as l oaded. She di d not keep the gun l oaded, how ever , orhave a nyamm uni t i on i n herhom e. ¶4 S. di al ed 911 and Tucs on pol i ce of fi cerB r i an M o o re r es ponded t o t he s cene . H e in ter v iew e d S . a n d , la ter th a t m o rn in g , h e in ter v iew e d S a ru llo a t th e p o lice sta tio n . S a ru llo t ol d M oor e he ha d ent er ed S
. ’ s hom e on W ednes day , A ugus t 24, us i ng t he keyhe had c opi ed, and he ha d t aken S. ’ s gun and pur chas ed amm uni t i on at a s t or e. H e admi t t ed r etur ni ng t o her h o me t h e n e x tmo r n i n g , Au g u s t2 5 , a n d p o i n t i n g t h e r e v o l v e r“ i n h e rg e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n . ” He
c o n c e d e d S . h a d b e e n f

rig h ten e d
. H e a lso to ld M o o re h e h a d in ten d e d to c o m m it su icid e in f ro n t o f S ., sta tin g : “I f

e lt th a t . . . itw o u ld h a v e a m o re p sy c h o lo g ica l im p a c t d o in g it w ith h e r g u n a n d h a v e h e r s e e it.” ¶5 I n Sept ember , Sarul l o w as char ged w i t h t he fol l ow i ng offe ns es i n a four
- count i ndi ct m ent : count one al l eged fi r s t - degr ee bur gl ary for t he entr yi nt o S. ’ s hom e thatoccurr ed on W ednes day , A ugus t24; coun t tw o all eged fi r s t - degr ee bur gl aryfort he entr yt hathad
occurr ed on Thurs day , A ugus t25; and the r emai ni ng count s of aggr avat ed as s aul tand theft of S. ’ s handgun. A ft era j ur yt r i al , Sarul l o w as convi ct ed of a l l char ges and sent ence d as s et for t h above. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.4 D i s cus s i on i. C o r p u s D e licti R u le ¶6 S a ru llo f

irst a rg u e s th e sta te p re se n ted in su f f ici ent evi den c e o f

th e c o rp u s d e licti forcount s one and f

our , w hi ch cha r ged hi m w i t h t he bur gl aryand theft that occurr ed on A ugus t24. Sarul l o di d notr ai s e thi s i s s ue bel ow , and w e ther efor e r evi ew onl yfor f u n d a m e n ta l e rr o r. See S t ate v. A l atorr e , 191 A r i z. 208, ¶¶ 12- 13, 953 P. 2d 1261, 1265 ( A pp. 1998)
. “‘ Fundam ent al err ori s t hat w hi ch goes t o t he hea r tof the def endant ’ s cas e ort akes fr om hi m a r i ghtes s ent i al t o hi s defe ns e. ’ ” See St at e v. P hi l l i ps , 202 A r i z. 427, ¶ 48, 46 P. 3d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 8 (2 0 0 2 ), quot i ng St at e v. V aldez , 1 6 0 A ri z. 91 3 -14 , 7 7 0 P
. 2 d 3 1 3 , 3 1 7 -18 (19 8 9 ). S u c h e rr o r m u s t a ls o b e p re ju d ic ia l. St at e v. Hender s on , 210 A r i z. 561, ¶ 26, 115 P. 3d 601, 6 0 8 (20 0 5 ). ¶7 “A d ef

en d an t maynotbe convi ct ed of a cr i m e bas ed on an unc or r obor at ed confe s s i on w i t houti ndepende ntpr oof of the corpus del i ct i , orthe ‘ body of the cr i m e. ’ ” S ta te
v. Mor gan , 2 0 4 A ri z. 1 6 6 , ¶ 1 5 , 6 1 P
. 3 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 4 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ), quot i ng St at e v. G i l l i es , 135 A r i z. 500, 506, 6 6 2 P. 2d 1007, 1013 ( 1983)
. T he corpus del i ct i rul e r equi r es t hat , befor e a defe ndant ’ s s t at ement s m aybe admi t t ed as evi den ce of a c r i m e, t he s t at e mustpr ovi de i ndepende ntpr oof thata cr i m e w as comm i t t ed and tha ts om eone w as r es pons i bl e fort he
o f f e n s e . See Stat e v. R ubi ano , 214 A r i z. 184, ¶ 6, 150 P. 3d 271, 272- 73 ( A pp. 2007)
. T he pu rpose of the rule i s t o p revent a person from being co nv i ct ed b ased sol el yon a fal se confe s s i on t hatm ayhave be en the r es ul tof t he per s on’ s m ent al i ns t abi l i t yorobt ai ned thr ough5

im p ro p e r p o lic e p ro c e d u re s . S e e id
. ¶ 7 . “O n lya re a so n a b le in f e re n c e o f th e c o rp u s d e licti need e xi s tbefor e a c onfes s i o n m aybe cons i der ed. ” G i l l i es , 135 A r i z. at506, 662 P. 2d at 1013. ¶8 S aru ll o co n tend s h i s s t at em en ts t o M o o re w ere the o n lyev iden ce o f th e b u rglary
an d thef t on A u g u st 2 4
. T h e state resp o n d s tha t Sa rull o ’s ad m issi o n s to tho se o ff en ses w ere
corr obor at ed by S. ’ s t es t i m ony t hat t he gun Sarul l o pos s es s ed on A ugus t25 w as l oaded a nd th a t s h e d id n o t k e e p a m m u n itio n in th e h o u s e . T h e s t a te a rg u e s , “ [ f ]r o m th is e v id e n c e , a
re a so n a b le in f

e re n c e c o u ld b e m a d e th a t [ S a ru llo ] e n ter e d [ S .’s] h o u se a t so m e p o in t p rio r to A ugus t25, 2005, t ook t he unl oaded gun f ort he purpos e of pur chas i ng amm uni t i on , and
re tu rn e d to [ S .’s] h o m e o n A u g u st 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 .” S a ru llo c o u n ter s th a t th e o n lyre a so n a b le i nfer ence t hatm aybe dr aw n fr om S. ’ s t es t i m onyi s t hat Sarul l o obt ai ned and l oaded S. ’ s gun
o n Au g u s t2 5 , j u s tb e f

o r e e n t e r i n g h e rb e d r o o m. ¶9 A l t hough fac tually d is s i m i l arfr om t hi s cas e, w e fi nd ourdeci s i on i n St at e v. Mor gan , 2 0 4 Ar i z . 1 6 6 , 6 1 P. 3 d 4 6 0 ( App
. 2 0 0 2 ) , i n s t ru c t i v e o n t h i s i s s u e . Th e r e, t he d ef endant confe s s ed t o pol i ce t hat he had engage d i n var i ous s exual act s w i t h a m ino r, in c lu d in g o ra l s e x u a l c o n ta c t. Id . ¶ 6 . H e w a s th e n c h a rg e d w ith , in tera lia , s exual conduct
w ith a m in o r b y f

o rc in g h e r to h a v e o ra l s e x u a l c o n ta c t w ith h im
. Id
. ¶ 7. D ur i ng t he tr i al , t he
m in o r d id n o t tes tifya b o u t an yo ra l se x u a l co n tac t s h e h a d h a d w ith th e d e f e n d a n t. Id
. ¶ 23. H ert es t i m ony , how ever , as w el l as t hatof anotherw i t nes s and phy s i ca l ev idence col l ect ed fr om t he mi n o r ’ s b o d y , c o r r o b o r a t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s a d mi s s i o n s t o o t h e rt yp e s o f s e x ual6

c o n ta c t h e h a d w i t h th e v ic tim
. Id
. I n fi ndi ng t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence of the corpus d e licti, i n d e p e n d e n t o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts’ sta tem e n t, to su p p o rt th e c h a rg e o f o ra l se x u a l co n tac t,
w e not ed t hat w hen a confe s s ed i nci dent w as “cl os el y al l i ed i n t i m e and ci r cumst ance ” t o an i ndepende nt l ycorr obor at ed off ens e, “the t rus t w or t hi nes s of [the] confe s s i on as a w hol e w as
s uffi ci ent l y es t abl i s hed. ” I d. ¶ 1 9 , q u o tin gD ru m b a rg e r v . S ta te , 7 1 6 P .2 d 6 , 1 2 (A las k a C t. A pp. 1986) ( al t er at i on i n Mor gan ). W e th e n c o n c lu d e d : I ndepende ntevi den ce e s t abl i s hed the comm i s s i on of s ever al se x u a l cr im e s c lo se lyre lat e d to th e [ o ra l] se x u a l co n d u c t. A lth o u g h , ab se n t [ th e d e f e n d a n t’s] c o n f

e ss io n , th e e v id e n c e d id nots how t hat[the mi nor ] and [the defe ndant ] had anyor al s exual c o n tac t, th e c o n f

e ss io n w a s s u f

f icie n tlyc o rro b o ra ted to el i m i n a te anyconce r n t hati t co u ld be untrue and, t hus , s uppor t ed a
‘ r eas onabl e i nfer ence ’ t hatt he off ens e had oc curr ed. Id . ¶ 2 3 ; see al

so A l atorr e , 191 A r i z. 208, ¶ 12, 953 P. 2d at 1261, 1265 ( r eas onabl e i nfer ence
o f c o rp u s d e lic ti s u f

f ic ie n t)
. ¶10 H er e, Sarul l o t ol d M oor e he ha d ent er ed S. ’ s hom e on A ugus t24, t aken he rgun,
an d en tered ag ain o n A u g u st 25
. A lth o u g h the re w as n o ev iden ce , ap art fro m S aru ll o ’s confe s s i o n , o f t h e Aug u s t 2 4 b u r g l a r y a n d t h e f t , t h e r e was u n c o n t r a d i c t e d e v i d e n c e o f t he bur gl aryand aggr avat ed as s aul ton A ugus t25. T hus , as i n Mor gan , t her e w as i ndepende nt
ev id e n c e to e stab li sh the c o m m issi o n o f c ri m es “ clos elyrelated ” to th e A u g u st 24 b u rglary
a n d th e f t. S e e id
. M o r e o ve r , S a ru l l o t o l d S
. o n Au g u s t2 5 t h a th e h a d e n t e r e d h e rh o me
ear l i erand t aken he rgun, and, as t he s t at e poi nt s out , S. di d notkeep the gun l oaded orhave
a m m u n iti o n in h e r h o m e b u t th e g u n w a s lo a d e d o n A u g u st 2 5 . F ro m th e se f a c ts, th e re is litt leBe c a u s e we f i n d t h e r e wa s s u f

f i c i e n te v i d e n c e o f t h e c o rp u s d e l i c t i i n t h i s c a s e , we 1 d e c lin e th e sta te’ s in v it a tio n to c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e c o m m o n law c o rp u s d e licti ru le
“ c o n f lic ts w ith A ri z o n a la w .” 7 r i s k Sarul l o’ s convi ct i ons on count s one and f ourw er e based o n a fal s e conf es s i on. A c c o rd in g ly , w e f

in d h is a d m iss io n to th e A u g u st 2 4 b u rg lar ya n d th e f t su f f icie n tly
corr ob orat ed an d that t he evi den ce s up po rt ed a r easona ble i nference thathe co m m i t t ed those off enses. 1 i i . I nt ent t o D epri ve ¶11 Sarul l o nextar gues t her e w as i ns uffi ci ent evi dence t o s uppor tcount s one and fo u r bec aus e ther e w as no evi dence he i nt ended t o per m anent l ydepr i ve S. of herr ev o lver. H e cl ai m s “[t ] he undi s put ed evi dence s how s [he] ent er ed the al l eged vi ct im ’s h o m e on 8/ 24/ 05 i nt endi ng t o t ak e h er rev o lve r , nott o per m anent l ydepr i ve herof i t , butt o l at er
comm i ts ui ci de i n fr ont of herw i t h hergun. ” I n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , Sarul l o not es t hat d u rin g h is in ter v iew w ith M o o re h e sta te d : “ [ W ]ith in th e p a st f e w w e e k s, I s e rio u sly cont empl at ed comm i t t i ng s uici d e, and I fel tt hat
. . . i tw oul d have a m or e ps y chol ogi cal i m pactdoi ng i tw i t h hergun and have hers ee i t . ” ¶12 W e agr ee w i t h Sarul l o t hatcount s one and f our , bas ed on hi s t heft of S
. ’ s gun,
re q u ir e d th e s ta te to p ro v e h e in te n d e d to p e rm a n e n tly d e p ri v e h e r o f h e r p ro p e rt y . See A
. R. S. §§ 13- 1507, 13- 1508 ( per s on comm i t s bur gl arybyent er i ng r es i dent i al s t ructur e w i t h i nt ent to c o m m it an yth e f

t o r f e lo n yth e re in ); § 1 3 -1 8 0 2 (A )(1 ) (p e rso n c o m m its th e f t b yk n o w in g ly
c o n tro lli n g p ro p e rty o f a n o th e r w ith in ten t to d e p riv e o w n e r o f su c h p ro p e rty ). C o n tra ryto8

S a ru llo ’s a s s e rt io n , h o w e v e r, th is in te n t co u ld b e in f e rr e d f ro m e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. See Stat e v. E dgar , 126 A r i z. 206, 209, 613 P. 2d 1262, 1265 ( 1980) ( i nt ent t o per m anent l y depr i ve may b e e s ta b lis h e d b yc ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e ). ¶13 S. t es t i fi ed that , aft ers he and Sarul l o had ended their re l at i ons hi p, he s ai d he
w a s c o n sid e rin g k ill in g h im se lf a n d “ tak in g [ h e r] w ith h im .” S h e a lso tes tifie d th a t S a ru llo h a d p o in te d h e r g u n d ir e c tly a t h e r, t h a t s h e h a d b e e n “ lo o k in g d o w n th e b a rr e l o f th e g u n ,” and thathe agai n t ol d her he w as cons i der i ng “t ak[i ng her ] w i t h hi m . ” Fr om t hi s evi dence , t he j ur ycoul d have f

ound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtSarul l o had t aken t he gun w i t h t he i nt ent
o f u s in g it to k ill S
. a n d , th u s , h a d in te n d e d to p e rm a n e n tly d e p ri v e h e r o f it. See Stat e v. C ox , 2 1 7 A riz . 3 5 3 , ¶ 2 2 , 1 7 4 P .3 d 2 6 5 , 2 6 9 (2 0 0 7 ) (e v id e n c e m u st p e rm it ratio n a l trier o f f a c t to fi nd el ement s of cr i m e bey ond r eas onabl e doubt )
. M or eover , as t he st at e poi nt s out , t he i nt ent t o per m anent l y depr i ve coul d be i nferr ed fr om t he fa ctSarul l o had i ni t i al l yt aken the w eapon
w ith o u t h e r c o n s e n t. See Stat e v. Jack s on , 101 A r i z. 399, 402, 420 P
. 2 d 2 7 0 , 2 73 ( 1966) ( i nt entt o per m anent l ydepr i ve can be i nferr ed fr om unexpl ai ned or uns at i s fac t or yexpl anat i on
o f tak ing p rop ertyw ith o u t con sen t)
. i i i . I n t e r v i e w o f

L. ¶14 B ef

o re tri al, S aru ll o fil ed a m o ti o n to dep o se L
. , S
. ’s t h irteen -y ea r-old d au g h ter,
w ho had bee n i n t he home t he ni gh t o f the inc i dent
. T he s t at e r es ponded thathe w as pr ecl uded fr om doi ng s o byA r i zona’ s V i ct i m s ’ R i ght s St atut e, A
. R
. S. § 13- 4433( A ) , w hi ch p r o v i d e s , i n r e l e v a n t p a r t , “ t h e v i c t i m [ o f a c r i me ] s h a l l n o t b e c o mpe l l e d t o s ubm i t t o an9

i nt er vi ew on anym at t er. . . t hat i s conduct ed byt he def endant , t he def

endant ’ s at t or neyoran agen t of t he defe nd ant. ” “V i ct i m ” i s defi ned as “a person ag ai nstw ho m t he cri m i nal offense h as b ee n co m m itted.” A
. R
. S
. § 1 3 -44 0 1 (19 ). A fter a h ea ri n g , the tr ial co u rt d en ied S aru ll o ’s
m ot i on, a dec i s i on he now chal l enges . B eca us e the i s s ue r ai s ed i nvol ves a ques t i on of
s t atut or y i nt erpr et at i on, w e r evi ew t he tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on de novo
. S e e L in c o ln v . H o lt , 215 A ri z. 21 , ¶ 4 , 1 5 6 P
. 3 d 4 3 8 , 4 4 0 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶15 A s not ed above , § 13- 4433 pr ovi des t hata vi ct i m of a c r i m e mayr efus e t o be in te rv ie w e d b yth e d e f e n d a n t o r t h e d e f

e n d a n t’ s a tto rn e y . See al s o A ri z. C o n st. art. II, § 2. 1( A ) ( 5)
. T he i s s ue i s w hether L
. , w ho w as pr es ent i n t he hom e dur i ng t he bur gl ary , m ay b e c o n side red a “ v ict im ” o f th e b u rglary fo r p u rpo ses o f § 1 3 -44 3 3
. S aru ll o arg u es b u rglary “i s a cr i m e aga i ns ta s t ructur e and not a p erso n” and he s ugges t s bur gl aryi s t her efor e a vi ct i m l es s cr i m e. W e di s agr ee. A l t hough w e have found no cas es t hatdi r ect l yaddr es s w ho i s the v i ct i m of a b urgl ary , A ri zon a cou rt s r epeatedl yhav e referred to persons as the “v i ct i m s” of b urgl ari es. See, e. g. , Stat e v. B l ackm ore , 1 8 6 A ri z. 63 0 , 6 3 1 , 9 2 5 P
. 2 d 1 3 4 7 , 1 3 4 8 (19 9 6 ); St at e v. E dw ar ds , 1 5 4 A ri z. 8, 10 , 7 3 9 P
. 2 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 7 (A p p . 1 9 8 6 ). ¶16 H i s t or i cal l y , bur gl aryl aw s ar e r oot ed i n the r ecogni t i on of the dange ran in tru d e r p re s e n ts to th e o c c u p a n ts o f a re s id e n c e . See M odel Penal C ode § 221. 1 cmt
. 2 at67 ( M odel P en al C ode l i m i t s bur gl aryt o “ci r cumst ance s es peci al l yl i kel yt o t err or i ze
o c c u p a n ts” ); s ee al

s o P eopl e v. St at l er , 2 1 9 C al. R p tr . 7 1 3 , 7 1 8 (C al. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) (bu rglary law s b a se d o n re c o g n iti o n o f d a n g e r to p e rso n a l sa f e tyo f o c c u p a n ts). T h is c o n c e rn isF o r th e sa m e rea so n , w e reject S aru ll o ’s a rgu m en t tha t the o n ly v ict im o f a b u rglary 2 i s t he per s on agai ns tw hom t he theftorfel onyw as i nt ended t o be comm i t t ed. 10 r efl ect ed i n A r i zona’ s bur gl ary s t atut es , w hi ch pr ovi de a hi gher offe ns e l evel forbur gl aryof
a re side n ti al st ruc ture tha n a n o n -reside n ti al st ruc ture a n d the h igh est o ff en se lev el f

o r a b u rg la ry c o m m itte d w h ile a rm e d
. See A
. R
. S. §§ 13- 1506, 13- 1507, 13- 1508. W e fi nd t he 2 occupa nt s of a bur gl ar i zed home, t her efor e, m aybe fa i r l ychar act er i ze d as “vi ct i m s ” of the b u rgl a ry. C

f. S tate v. W

i l s on , 150 P. 3d 144, 150 ( W as h. A pp. 2007) ( “the purpos e of a b u rg lar ysta tu te is to p ro tec t th e o c c u p a n c y a n d h a b itatio n o f a re sid e n c e ” ); S ta te v . D a v is , 954 P .2 d 3 2 5 , 3 2 8 (W a s h . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) ( f in d in g b o th o c c u p a n t a n d g u e s t v ic tim s o f a b u rg la ry). ¶17 I n t hi s cas e, L
. w as hom e at t he t i m e of the bur gl ary , as l eep i n t he bedr oom next t o S
. ’ s b e d r o o m , w h e r e t h e a s s a u l to c c u r r e d
. S h e w a s t h e r e f o r e a v i c t i m o f

t h e b u r g l a r y. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude L. had the r i ghtt o r efus e t o s ubm i t t o an i nt er vi ew conduct ed by S a ru llo o r h is a tto rn e y , s ee A
. R
. S. § 13 -44 3 3 , an d t he tr i al cour tdi d noterri n deny i ng S aru ll o ’s m o ti o n to d ep o se h er. See al s o A ri z. C o n st. art. II, § 2
. 1 (A )(5). ¶18 Sarul l o al s o ar gues L
. cannot be a “vi ct i m ” becaus e she w as not named i n t he in d ictm e n t an d c lai m s , w ith o u t cita tio n to a u th o rity , tha t “p ro p e rlya n d im m e d iate ly i dent i fy i ng t he ‘ vi ct i m ’ i n a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on i s i m per at i ve t o s at i s fy i ng m i ni m um
s t andar ds of due pr oces s . ” W e di s agr ee. I n A r i zona, due pr oces s r equi r es fun d am en t al f a ir n e s s , St at e v. Mel endez , 172 A r i z. 68, 71, 834 P. 2d 154, 157 ( 1992) , w hi ch i n tur n r equi r es t hatcr i m i nal defe ndant s be af for ded a meani ngful oppor tuni t yt o pr es enta compl et e def ens e,11

C a lif o rn ia v . T

ro m b e tta , 4 6 7 U .S . 4 7 9 , 4 8 5 (1 9 8 4 ). W e f in d n o th in g f

u n d a m e n tallyu n f

a ir aboutt he s t at e’ s fai l ur e t o name L
. as a vi ct i m i n t he i ndi ct m ent , and Sarul l o has nots t at ed how t hi s fai l ur e af

fec t ed hi s abi l i t yt o pr es enta def ens e. M or eover , w e have found not hi ng t h a t w o u ld h a v e p re v e n te d S a ru llo f ro m c a llin g L . a s a w itn e s s d u ri n g tr ia l. See Stat e v. G i l f i l l an , 1 9 6 A riz
. 3 9 6 , ¶ 1 9 , 9 9 8 P .2 d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 7 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); s ee al s o St at e v. C ar l os , 199 A r i z. 273, ¶ 29, 17 P. 3d 118, 125 ( A pp. 2001) ( Pel ander , J
. , di s s ent i ng) ( defe ndanthas r i ght to p rese n t ow n w itn esse s, inclu d ing ri g h t t o su b p o en a v ict im as w itn ess). i v. S. ’ s M e di c al R e c or ds ¶19 B efore t ri al , S arul l o m ov ed the cou rtt o “o rdert he S t at e t o p roduce [S
. ’s ]
m e d ic a l/c o u n s e lin g re c o rd s , f o r t h e y e a rs s u r r o u n d in g th e in c id e n t o f A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 .” Speci fi cal l y , Sarul l o s ought i nfor m at i on r el at i ng t o S. ’ s “i nabi l i t y t o carr y on h ea l t hy pr oduct i ve r el at i ons hi ps , ” anychange s i n her pr es cr i pt i on m edi cat i on ar ound t he t i m e of the incid e n t, a n d h e r discu ssion s o f th e inc iden t w ith h er c o u n selo r. A fter a h ea ri n g , the c o u rt deni ed the mot i on. O n appea l , Sarul l o cont ends t he courterr ed i n deny i ng hi m acc es s t o t hat i nfor m at i on, cl ai m i ng i t w as nece s s ary t o hi s defe ns e t hatS. “knew t he eve ntcent er ed ar ound [Sarul l o’ s ] t hr eat ened s ui ci de, buts he l at erdevel oped a ps y chol ogi cal need t o s ee the eve nt
as an as s aul t . ” W e r evi ew t he court ’ s deci s i on de novo
. See Stat e v. C onnor , 215 A r i z. 553, ¶ 6 , 1 6 1 P
. 3 d 5 9 6 , 6 0 0 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶20 G ener al l y , t he vi ct i m of a c r i m e has t he r i ghtt o r efus e t o hand o v er medi cal
re c o rd s , p u r s u a n t to A ri z o n a ’s V ic tim s ’ B ill o f R ig h ts . See Stat e ex . r el R om l ey , 172 A r i z.12

232, 237- 38, 836 P. 2d 445, 450- 51 ( A pp. 1992)
. A s Sarul l o poi nt s out , this righ t i s not abs ol ut e, and i n s om e cas es a vi ct i m m aybe r equi r ed t o pr oduce hi s orherm edi cal r ecor ds foran i n cam er a in s p e c tio n b yth e tr ia l c o u rt . See Connor , 215 A r i z. 553, ¶ 10, 161 P. 3d at 601. T he def

endant , how ever , m us t fi r s t s how a “r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he i nfor m at i on
s oughtby t he defe ndanti ncl ude[s ] i nfor m at i on t o w hi ch [he or ] s he [i s ] ent i t l ed as a mat t er of due pr oces s . ” Id
. ¶21 I n t hi s cas e, Sarul l o has not pr es ent ed a s uffi ci ent l ys peci fi c bas i s forr equi r i ng S . to p ro d u c e h e r m e d ica l re c o rd s. In d e e d , the re is n o th in g in th e re c o r d to su p p o rt h is
as s er t i on t hatt he medi cal r ecor ds w oul d s how S. had not i ni t i al l yvi ew ed the i nci dentas an
as s au l ta n d “ c o u l d h a v e s h o wn t h e r e was a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b ta b o u twhe t h e rt h e g u n was actual l ypoi nt ed at[her ]
. ” W hen M oor e fi r s t arr i ved at t he s cene , S. t ol d hi m “[t ] he gun w as p o inted at m e,” a fa ct sh e m aintaine d thro u g h o u t the t ri al. A n d S aru ll o h im self told M o o re dur i ng t he i nt er vi ew t hathe had poi nt ed the gun i n herdi r ect i on and thatS. had bee n afr ai d. B e c a u se S a ru llo p ro v id e d th e c o u rt n o re a so n to b e liev e S ’s m e d ica l r e c o rd s w o u ld c o n tain excul pat or yevi dence , w e ca nnots ayt he courterr ed bydecl i ni ng t o or dert hei rpr oduct i on.
v. P ros ecut ori al M i s conduct ¶22 I n Saru l l o’ s cl os i ng r emar ks , he ar gued that , “on s om e s or tof ps y chol ogi cal l evel , ” S. neede d t o s ee hi s s ui ci de att empt as an as s aul t . I n r ebut t al , t he pr os ecut i on not ed th a t, w hil e t he burden of proof i s on t he prosecut i on , S arul l o fai l ed t o cal l any w i t nesse s to
s uppor thi s t heory . Sarul l o obj ect ed and t he t r i al cour t s t ruck t he st at ement . T he courtdeni ed13

hi s s ubs equentm ot i on for a m i s t r i al , fi ndi ng t hat t he pr os ecut or ’ s comm entw as noti m pr oper and, i n r etr os pect , s houl d not have been struck. Sarul l o now cont ends t hat , beca us e the tr i al
cour tdeni ed hi s m ot i ons t o depos e L. and fort he di s cl os ur e of c ouns el i ng r ecor ds , t he prosecutor ’s rem arks w ere m i scond uct an d shi ft ed t he bu rden of proof t o him
. S arul l o als o
m ai nt ai ns t hat , al t hough t he cour t s us t ai ned hi s obj ect i on t o t he comm ent , i t s fai l ur e t o i s s ue
a cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on ort o gr anta mi s t r i al cons t i tut ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. ¶23 A trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n f

o r m istria l f

o r p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t w ill
n o t b e d i s tu rb e d a b s e n t a c le a r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See Stat e v. B l ackm an , 201 A r i z. 527, ¶ 41 , 38 P
. 3d 11 92 , 12 03 (A pp . 20 02 ). T o requir e revers al , prosecutor i al m i scond uct m ust aff ectt he j ur y ’ s abi l i t y t o fai r l y as s es s t he evi dence and be “s o pr onounced a nd per s i s t entt hat i tper m eat es t he ent i r e atm os pher e of the tr ial
. ” St at e v. R os as - Her nandez , 202 A r i z. 212, ¶ 23, 42 P. 3d 1177, 1183- 84 ( A pp. 2002)
. C ouns el for bot h s i des have “ cons i der abl e l at i tude” i n cl os i ng ar gum ent s and a c l os i ng r emar k i s undul ypr ej udi ci al onl yw hen i t“ca l l s t o t he at t ent i on of t he j ur or s m at t er s w hi ch theyw oul d notbe j us t i fi ed i n cons i der i ng i n det er m i ni ng t hei rver di ct . ” S ta te v . Su sta ita , 1 1 9 A ri z . 5 8 3 , 5 9 3 -9 4 , 5 8 3 P .2 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 9 -5 0 (1 9 7 9 ), quot i ng St at e v. Trot t er , 1 1 0 A ri z . 6 1 , 6 5 , 5 1 4 P .2 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 3 (1 9 7 3 ). ¶24 W h e n a p r o se c u to r c o m m e n ts o n a d e f e n d a n t’s f

a ilu re to p re se n t ev id e n c e to
su p p o rt h is o r h e r th e o ryo f th e c a se , it is ne ith e r im p ro p e r n o r sh if ts th e b u rd e n o f

p ro o f to t he def endants o l ong as s uch comm ent s ar e not i nt ended t o di r ect t he j ur y ’ s at t ent i on t o t he d e f e n d a n t’ s f

a ilu re to te s tif

y . St at e v. Mar t i nez , 130 A r i z. 80, 82- 83, 634 P. 2d 7, 9- 10 ( A pp.14

1 9 8 1 ). H ere , the p rose cu tor’s co m m en ts did n o t r ef er to S aru ll o at all , b u t r athe r t o h is fail u re t o call exp e rt w i t nesses t o sup po rthis t heo ryregar ding t he v i ct i m ’s psy cho l og i cal st atus. C ont r aryt o Sarul l o’ s as s er t i ons , t he pr os ecut or ’ s comm entdi d notunfai r l yt ake a dvant age of t he court ’ s deni al of hi s at t empt s t o conduct“ps y chol ogi cal di s covery . ” A s t he s t at e ar gued befor e the tr i al cour t , even though Sarul l o coul d not have i nt r oduced t hi s par t i cul arevi dence , he r emai ned fr ee t o pr es ent an exper tt o t es t i fygener al l yabouta w i t nes s ’ s ps y chol ogi cal need to re -i n te rp re t e v e n ts . See Stat e v. Luj an , 1 9 2 Ar i z . 4 4 8 ¶ 1 2 , 9 6 7 P. 2 d 1 2 3 , 127 ( 1998) ( defe ndantcan c al l expertt o t es t i fygener al l yaboutw hyvi ct i m of ch i l d m ol es t at i on m ay f a bri cat e accu sat i on s)
. A ccord in g ly , b e c a u se w e a g re e th e re w a s n o p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t, t he tr i al cour tdi d noterri n deny i ng Sarul l o’ s m ot i on for a m i s t r i al and no cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on
w as r equi r ed. D i s posi t i on ¶25 Sarul l o’ s convi ct i ons and s ent ence s ar e af fi r m ed.

PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge