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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa 

County Attorney, Petitioner,

v.

THE HONORABLE JOSE PADILLA, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF 

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, 

Respondent Judge,

MATTHEW COLVIN, Real Party in Interest.

No. 1 CA-SA 16-0148

Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-153609-001 DT

The Honorable Jose S. Padilla, Judge

JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Adena J. Astrowsky

Counsel for Petitioner

Law Office of Carrie M. Spiller, PLLC, Phoenix

By Carrie M. Spiller

Counsel for Real Party in Interest
STATE v. HON. PADILLA/COLVIN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Samuel A. Thumma 

joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 The State petitions for special action review of the trial court’s 

order determining audio recordings of a victim’s 9-1-1 telephone calls were

cumulative and, therefore, inadmissible. For the following reasons, we 

accept jurisdiction and grant relief by vacating the court’s order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In the course of its prosecution of Matthew Colvin for the 

alleged unlawful imprisonment and assault of Lisa F., the State disclosed 

audio recordings of two 9-1-1 telephone calls made by Lisa and a return call 

initiated by the dispatcher after Lisa disconnected the second call. The calls 

were all made during the course of events that gave rise to the charges 

against Colvin. At a bench conference held during voir dire, the trial court 

entered an order precluding the audio recordings of the 9-1-1 telephone 

calls on the basis that they would be cumulative to Lisa’s anticipated trial 

testimony.1 The court did so on its own motion, without listening to the 

recordings, holding a hearing, or permitting the parties to provide 

additional briefing or argument on their admissibility. 

¶3 The State made an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration, 

and this petition followed. In the exercise of our discretion, we accept 

jurisdiction, recognizing the State has no adequate remedy by appeal. See

Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a); State ex rel. Romley v. Fields, 201 Ariz. 321, 323, ¶ 4 

(App. 2001); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4032 (2016); Rolph v. Mesa City 

 

1 Colvin argues the trial court never ruled on the admissibility of the 

9-1-1 recordings, instead offering only its “leanings toward the[ir]

admissibility.” However, the State clearly evidenced its understanding that 

a ruling had been made when it filed a “Motion to Reconsider Court’s Order 

Precluding 911 Evidence as Cumulative.” And, in summarily denying the 

motion to reconsider, the court offered no explanation to suggest it 

considered the issue unresolved or the motion premature. 
STATE v. HON. PADILLA/COLVIN

Decision of the Court

3

Court, 127 Ariz. 155, 158 (1980) (“The state is not authorized to appeal from 

a judgment of acquittal . . . even though ‘the acquittal was based upon an 

egregiously erroneous foundation.’”) (quoting Arizona v. Washington, 434 

U.S. 497, 503 (1978)).

DISCUSSION

¶4 The State argues the trial court’s order precluding the 9-1-1 

calls was error. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. 

State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla, 238 Ariz. 560, 564, ¶ 12 (App. 2015) (citing 

State v. Bernstein, 237 Ariz. 226, 228, ¶ 9 (2015)). A trial court abuses its 

discretion when a “discretionary conclusion was reached without 

consideration of the evidence.” Grant v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 133 Ariz. 434, 

455-56 (1982) (supplemental op.) (citing Knollmiller v. Welch, 128 Ariz. 34, 

36-37 (App. 1980)).

¶5 There is no apparent dispute regarding the relevancy of the 9-

1-1 calls; therefore, they are admissible unless there is some basis to exclude 

them. See Ariz. R. Evid. 402. Relevant evidence may be excluded “if its 

probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . needlessly 

presenting cumulative evidence.” Ariz. R. Evid. 403. The balancing test 

contemplated by Rule 403 is a fact- and context-intensive inquiry, requiring 

examination of various factors, including the specific relevant evidence at 

issue, the other evidence received at trial, and the nature of the charges. See 

Hudgins v. Sw. Airlines, Co., 221 Ariz. 472, 481, ¶ 13 (App. 2009) (noting 

“‘probative value’ and ‘the danger of unfair prejudice’ are not easily 

quantifiable factors”) (citing State v. Gibson, 202 Ariz. 321, 324, ¶ 17 (2002)).

Generally, the trial court is in the best position to perform this balancing 

test. State v. Spencer, 176 Ariz. 36, 41 (1993) (“Rule 403 weighing is best left 

to the trial court.”) (citing State v. Robles, 135 Ariz. 92, 95 (1983)).

¶6 The trial court here precluded the 9-1-1 calls without knowing

either the substance of Lisa’s trial testimony or the contents of the 

recordings. The court did not make and, without having reviewed this 

information, could not have made, any findings regarding the probative 

value of the calls or the extent to which their content would overlap with, 

rather than corroborate, Lisa’s proposed testimony. This record does not 

reflect a proper balancing in finding the calls inadmissible under Rule 403. 

Nor could the court properly evaluate whether Lisa’s statements within the 

9-1-1 calls were separately admissible as a present sense impression or an 

excited utterance pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 803(1) and (2) 

without having heard them. For these reasons, the court had no basis upon 

which to make an admissibility determination and thereby erred.
STATE v. HON. PADILLA/COLVIN

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶7 We accept jurisdiction and grant relief by vacating the trial

court’s order.