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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DAVID CRAMER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0157

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-005939-001

The Honorable Jeanne M. Garcia, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix

By William Scott Simon

Counsel for Appellee

Office of the Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix

By Terry J. Reid

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Defendant, David Cramer, appeals from his convictions and 

sentences for one count of possession of narcotic drugs for sale and six

counts of misconduct involving weapons. He challenges two of the trial 

court’s evidentiary rulings, and he contends the prosecutor engaged in 

misconduct. Defendant also argues the drug charge is duplicitous. Lastly, 

Defendant contends he is entitled to an additional day of presentence 

incarceration credit. For the reasons that follow, we agree that the court 

erred in computing Defendant’s sentence. In all other respects, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 As police were surveilling Defendant’s home for potential 

illicit drug activity, they observed D.S. arrive at the residence, enter, and 

drive away ten minutes later. Officers followed D.S., and Detective 

Buffington effectuated a traffic stop. D.S. informed Buffington that there 

were “pills” in his car, and upon further questioning, D.S. admitted he had 

just purchased the pills from Defendant. Two of the pills were oxycodone, 

a narcotic that D.S. had been buying from Defendant for the past year. Soon 

thereafter, police arrested Defendant as he drove from his home. 

¶3 During a search later that evening of Defendant’s home and 

vehicles pursuant to a warrant, officers discovered a number of pills, 

including oxycodone, and prescription bottles for oxycodone and other 

medications bearing Defendant’s name. Police also found on Defendant’s 

cell phone multiple text messages from D.S. and other individuals 

requesting to purchase oxycodone. Texts between Defendant and D.B. just 

before Defendant’s arrest indicated Defendant was going to meet D.B. to 

purchase 15 oxycodone pills for $42.00 to $43.00 each. Defendant had 

approximately $600.00 in his pocket when he was arrested. Further, police 

discovered two handguns in Defendant’s kitchen and two in the master 

bedroom. A “drug ledger” was located in one of Defendant’s vehicles. 
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The State charged Defendant with one count of possession of 

narcotic drugs for sale, two counts of possession of dangerous drugs for 

sale, and eight counts of misconduct involving weapons. The weapons 

charges were based on allegations that Defendant was a prohibited 

possessor and that he knowingly used or possessed the four handguns 

during the commission of the drug offenses. 

¶5 The court entered a judgment of acquittal as to two of the 

misconduct involving weapons charges. The jury acquitted Defendant of 

the two charges relating to dangerous drugs and returned guilty verdicts 

as to the remaining counts. The court ordered concurrent sentences of 

imprisonment and credited Defendant with 568 days of presentence 

incarceration. Defendant appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -

4033(A)(1).1

DISCUSSION

I. Prior Consistent Statements

¶6 D.S. testified at trial that he purchased oxycodone from 

Defendant, and he also explained he was testifying pursuant to a 

testimonial agreement with the State. After D.S. testified, and over 

Defendant’s objection on hearsay grounds, the court admitted in evidence 

a video recording of D.S.’s police interview wherein D.S. made statements 

consistent with his trial testimony. The court reasoned the recording was 

admissible under Arizona Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 801(d)(1)(B) (2013)2 as 

a prior consistent statement to rebut Defendant’s express or implied charge 

during D.S.’s cross-examination that D.S. fabricated testimony because of

the plea agreement with the State. Defendant subsequently moved for a 

mistrial, arguing the recorded interview did not fall within the gambit of 

Rule 801(d). The court denied the motion.

¶7 Rule 801(d)(1)(B) allows for the admission of a trial witness’s 

prior statements that are consistent with his or her testimony “to rebut an 

express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated” statements 

made at trial. Ariz. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). To be admissible, the prior 

 

1 We cite to a statute’s current version unless otherwise noted.

2 Because the rule was amended and renumbered effective January 1, 

2015, we cite the version in effect at the time of trial. 
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

4

statement must have been made before the motive to fabricate arose. State 

v. Martin, 135 Ariz. 552, 553 (1983). 

¶8 Defendant argues that the record does not support the trial 

court’s determination that D.S.’s plea agreement provided the motive to

testify falsely; rather, Defendant contends D.S.’s motive arose before the 

interview when D.S. was stopped by police. In support, Defendant points 

to D.S.’s testimony regarding his belief that if he cooperated with the 

officers investigating Defendant’s drug activity, he would not face 

prosecution for his own illicit possession of prescription pills. Indeed, 

Defendant asserts: “[I]t was clear that [D.S.] believed an agreement [with 

police] had been reached.” Defendant also contends he attacked D.S.’s 

credibility “on multiple fronts[;]” thus, the court erred in finding Defendant 

focused on the plea agreement as the basis for challenging D.S.’s veracity at 

trial. We review the court’s admission of evidence for an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Tucker, 205 Ariz. 157, 165, ¶ 41 (2003).

¶9 We agree with Defendant that the record indicates D.S. 

wanted to cooperate with police in their investigation of Defendant’s drug 

dealings. Thus, D.S. arguably had a motive to untruthfully implicate 

Defendant when police interviewed him. However, the record does not, 

contrary to Defendant’s argument, indicate D.S. had an agreement with the 

State to cooperate in the investigation at the time he was interviewed. 

Rather, D.S. subjectively believed his cooperation would result in favorable 

treatment with respect to his illegal activity. Moreover, the record also 

clearly demonstrates that Defendant impeached D.S. with, among other 

things, his subsequent plea agreement with the State. Indeed, during her 

opening statement, Defense counsel asserted: 

You will hear that [D.S.] in exchange for getting up on that 

stand and telling you his story has received a very favorable 

plea agreement from the state for testifying during the course 

of this trial, and for getting up on that stand and testifying for 

the state he spared himself significant time in custody because 

he's getting up on that stand. 

¶10 On this record, we cannot conclude that the court abused its 

discretion in admitting the recorded interview pursuant to Rule 

801(d)(1)(B) to rebut Defendant’s use of the plea agreement to impeach D.S.3 

 

3 Because we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in 

admitting the recorded interview, we need not separately address the 

court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for mistrial. 
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

5

In any event, even if the court did err in admitting this evidence, the error 

was harmless based on the overwhelming evidence of Defendant’s guilt, 

including D.S.’s trial testimony, the pills and drug ledger found in 

Defendant’s home and vehicles, and the text messages on Defendant’s 

phone regarding sales of oxycodone. Furthermore, D.S. was subjected to 

thorough cross-examination at trial. See State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127, 144, 

¶ 66 (2000) (concluding that any error in admitting a witness’s prior 

consistent statements was harmless when they were included in witness’s 

testimony and the witness was thoroughly cross–examined).

II. Text Messages Regarding Sales

¶11 At trial, the State introduced text messages from “Mondo”

seeking to purchase narcotics from Defendant. Defendant argues this 

evidence is improper other-act evidence under Rule 404(b) admitted to 

show his propensity for selling narcotics. We disagree.

¶12 Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of other acts “to prove the 

character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” The

text messages here are not evidence of Defendant’s other conduct used to 

prove he possessed narcotics for sale. Rather, the messages between 

Defendant and Mondo constitute relevant circumstantial evidence that 

Defendant knowingly possessed narcotics, not merely for his own personal 

use, but to sell. See State v. Chavez, 225 Ariz. 442, 444, ¶ 9 (App. 2010) 

(concluding text messages between prospective drug purchasers and 

defendant are circumstantial evidence of defendant’s possession of drugs 

for sale). As such, Rule 404(b) is inapplicable, and we reject Defendant’s 

argument. 

III. Prosecutorial Misconduct

¶13 Defendant contends numerous instances of prosecutorial 

misconduct denied him a fair trial. Specifically, he argues the prosecutor 

(1) improperly argued facts that were not in evidence; (2) invited the jury 

to “speculate and guess” as to why Defendant possessed empty oxycodone 

bottles; and (3) improperly elicited inadmissible hearsay. 

¶14 Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, 

negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, 

amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper 

and prejudicial.” Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 108-09 (1984). To 

justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent 

that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 

608, 616 (1997) (citations omitted). Even then, reversal is not required 
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

6

unless the defendant was denied a fair trial. State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 600

(1993).

A. A.C.

¶15 During their surveillance, police officers trailed a vehicle 

leaving Defendant’s home. The officers testified that the driver, A.C., did 

not immediately pull over when they attempted a traffic stop. After A.C.

eventually stopped, he consented to a search of his vehicle, and the officers 

found no drugs. Detective Buffington testified that A.C. could be the 

“Mondo” who had texted Defendant earlier that day about purchasing 

oxycodone. 

¶16 During the officers’ direct testimony, the court sustained 

Defendant’s objections when the prosecutor specifically asked whether 

A.C. delayed pulling over for a long enough time to “get rid of something” 

or to “take two or three small pills and get rid of them[.]” During crossexamination Defense Counsel questioned one of the officers involved in the 

stop. The line of questioning indicated that the officers had not observed 

A.C. throw any drugs out the window of his vehicle. On redirect, the 

prosecutor elicited testimony showing that the officers were not in a 

position to observe whether drugs were thrown out of the car. 

¶17 Defendant argues the prosecutor committed misconduct 

during closing arguments when he stated: ”If you will remember when 

[A.C.] was pulled over he didn’t pull over right away. It was getting dark 

and the officers didn’t get a good view. Could he have gotten rid of the two 

pills he purchased from the Defendant? I would suggest yes.”

¶18 Defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s statements; thus,

we review for fundamental error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, 

¶ 19 (2005) (failure to object to alleged trial error results in fundamental 

error review). To obtain relief under fundamental error review, Defendant 

has the burden to show that error occurred, the error was fundamental and 

that he was prejudiced thereby. See id., at, 567-68, ¶¶ 20-22. Fundamental 

error is error that “goes to the foundation of his case, takes away a right that 

is essential to his defense, and is of such magnitude that he could not have 

received a fair trial.” Id. at 568, ¶ 24. The showing required to establish 

prejudice “differs from case to case.” Id. at 568, ¶ 26. A defendant “must 

show that a reasonable jury, applying the appropriate standard of proof, 

could have reached a different result.” Id. at 569, ¶ 27.

¶19 Defendant’s argument fails. The prosecutor’s arguments are 

reasonable inferences based on the evidence. The testimony of the officers 
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

7

established that they were not able to view whether A.C. had thrown drugs 

out of his car before he was stopped. See supra at ¶ 16. 

B. Dustin H. Text Messages

¶20 When Defendant was arrested, an officer drove Defendant’s 

car back to Defendant’s home. The officer found a cell phone in the vehicle. 

Another officer retrieved the phone and placed it in the garage. Thus, while 

Defendant was detained by police, his cell phone was in his garage where 

officers waited for Detective Buffington to obtain the search warrant. 

¶21 During this time, someone named “Dusty” sent a text to 

Defendant’s phone indicating that he was on the way to Defendant’s home 

to purchase narcotic pills. In response, two outgoing texts on Defendant’s 

phone read: “Yeah just got out of the shower. Come on over. When you 

getting here?” Minutes later, at 10:43 p.m., a text message indicates “Dusty” 

arrived. 

¶22 At trial, Detective Cano testified Dustin H. walked into 

Defendant’s garage between 10:25 p.m. and 11:10 p.m. whereupon Cano 

arrested and Mirandized4 Dustin. The trial court sustained objections to the 

State’s attempts to illicit testimony connecting “Dusty” to Dustin H. The 

State did elicit testimony, however, from Detective Buffington that during 

drug investigations when a person is arrested, his or her phone may 

thereafter ring, and “sometimes officers answer those phones.” Defendant 

successfully objected to the State introducing evidence of a particular officer 

responding to Dusty’s text messages on Defendant’s phone. 

¶23 During closing arguments, defense counsel argued that, 

because Defendant was detained at the time of the aforementioned text 

conversation with Dusty, “[i]t is not [Defendant]. . . . I suggest to you that 

there is a reasonable doubt whether that phone at all is [Defendant’s] phone 

since there are texts going out of that phone long after he was in custody.” 

In rebuttal, the prosecutor argued: 

We also know for about an hour and a half the officers were 

waiting in that garage and other areas for the search warrant 

to be signed because they went into the house at about 

midnight. So if that phone is sitting there, there are officers 

standing around waiting and there are text messages coming in, 

 

4 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

8

should I come over; should I come over. It is not a huge leap of logic 

that one of them may have picked it up.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may continue.

[PROSECUTOR]: It is not a huge leap of logic to think that one of 

them may have picked it up and said yeah, sure come on by and we 

will see who shows up and we will talk to them. Can I tell you that 

that's what happened? No, because nobody stood up there 

and testified to that but that's a logical inference and it 

explains where there would be a text message after he is in 

custody. The fact is the vast majority of these text messages 

and really the most important ones are from the Defendant 

himself and they are from before he was in custody despite 

what the defense tries to tell you. (Emphasis added).

¶24 Defendant contends the italicized language amounted to an 

improper invitation to the jury “to consider unsworn evidence that a police 

officer responded to a text message, that Dustin [H.] was the Dusty in the 

text messages, and to infer that Dustin [H.] was a criminal suspect as he was 

provided with Miranda warnings.” 

¶25 We disagree. The prosecutor’s comments are reasonable 

inferences from the evidence to explain the existence of text messages on 

Defendant’s phone while he was in custody, especially in response to 

Defendant’s closing argument asserting the cell phone in question did not

belong to him. See State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63, 68 (1983) (“Wide latitude 

is given in closing arguments and counsel may comment on the evidence 

and argue all reasonable inferences therefrom.”). No misconduct occurred, 

let alone misconduct that deprived Defendant a fair trial. 

C. Empty Prescription Bottles

¶26 Referring to empty medication bottles discovered in 

Defendant’s home, the prosecutor argued the following during closing:

What is kind of interesting is he has also got one or two empty 

bottles of Oxycodone laying around. Now, why do you do 

that? Well, I guess we could speculate about that; but if you 

are going to go get additional Oxycodone not with a 

prescription, you would probably want a container to put 

those in that has your name and Oxycodone as a prescription 
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

9

on it. So if you get caught with them, you don't get in trouble. 

That might be a reason that you have empty Oxycodone 

bottles laying around. 

¶27 Defendant asserts the prosecutor’s argument reflects an 

improper invitation to the jury to “speculate and guess” as to Defendant’s 

“intent[.]” Again, Defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s argument;

thus, we review for fundamental error. 

¶28 The record does not support Defendant’s contention. The 

prosecutor’s comments are reasonable inferences based on the undisputed 

evidence of the empty bottles found on his property. This is especially so 

based on the wide latitude afforded counsel during closing arguments.

D. Conversation at Pharmacy

¶29 During the investigation into Defendant’s suspected drug 

activities, Detective Buffington trailed Defendant to a pharmacy where 

Buffington observed Defendant attempting to fill a prescription. 

Buffington testified that, while he was inside the pharmacy, he observed 

Defendant at the drive-through window and engage in a conversation with 

a pharmacy technician. The court sustained an objection by Defendant and 

ruled Buffington could not testify about statements the technician made, 

but he could testify as to his observations of the encounter between 

Defendant and the technician. Thereafter, defense counsel questioned 

Detective Buffington about his observations of the pharmacist’s interaction 

with the Defendant. 

¶30 On rebuttal, the prosecutor asked Buffington if he could hear 

what the pharmacy technician stated to the Defendant. Defense counsel 

objected on the grounds of hearsay and the objection was overruled by the 

court. 

¶31 Regarding the questions on rebuttal, Defendant argues: “This 

incident illustrates the prosecutor’s disregard for [Defendant’s] right to a 

fair trial conducted within the rules of evidence. The prosecutor did not call 

the pharmacy technician to testify, therefore, any statements by the 

technician were inadmissible hearsay. However, the prosecutor’s line of 

questioning left no doubt as to what the technician said.” 

¶32 We find no misconduct here. Detective Buffington did not 

testify as to the content of any statement made by the pharmacy technician, 

he merely testified he could hear and understand him while the technician 

spoke with Defendant. However, even if “the prosecutor’s line of 
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

10

questioning left no doubt as to what the technician said,” and therefore 

amounted to an improper admission of hearsay evidence, this legal error 

does not rise to the level of misconduct. See Pool, 139 Ariz. at 108-09. And 

any error in this respect was harmless, because D.S., in the recorded police 

interview, stated Defendant had informed him of the pharmacist’s refusal 

to refill a prescription. See, e.g., State v. Shearer, 164 Ariz. 329, 339-40 (App. 

1989) (holding that the introduction of inadmissible evidence was harmless 

error when said evidence was cumulative to and consistent with other trial 

testimony).

¶33 Because we conclude none of the examples Defendant raises 

amount to prosecutorial misconduct individually, we reject his argument 

that they cumulatively denied him a fair trial. 

IV. Duplicitous Charge

¶34 Defendant argues the trial court fundamentally erred in 

allowing the State to proceed on a duplicitous charge because the jury’s 

verdict on the possession of narcotics for sale did not indicate whether the 

sale to D.S. constituted the criminal act or, alternatively, whether the sale to 

A.C. did. According to Defendant, the prosecutor argued that Defendant 

committed two criminal acts, one sale to D.S. and one to A.C., and the court, 

in order to ensure unanimity of a verdict, was required either to order the 

State to choose which act it was proceeding with or to instruct the jury that 

it must unanimously agree on the act to which it was rendering a verdict. 

¶35 When evidence of more than one criminal act is introduced at 

trial to prove a single charged offense, a defendant faces inadequate notice 

of the charge he must defend, there exists the danger of a non-unanimous 

jury verdict, and pleading double jeopardy in a later prosecution can be 

impossible. State v. Klokic, 219 Ariz. 241, 244, ¶ 12 (App. 2008). Arizona 

courts have referred to this scenario as a “duplicitous charge” as opposed 

to a “duplicitous indictment,” the latter of which refers to an indictment 

that charges two or more separate acts in a single count. Klokic, at 243-44, 

¶¶ 10-12.

¶36 If the State presents evidence of multiple criminal acts to 

prove a single count, the trial court “must either require ‘the state to elect 

the act which it alleges constitutes the crime, or instruct the jury that they 

must agree unanimously on a specific act that constitutes the crime before 

the defendant can be found guilty.’” Id. at ¶ 14, quoting State v. Schroeder, 

167 Ariz. 47, 54 (App. 1990) (Kleinschmidt, J., concurring). Violation of the 
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

11

right to a unanimous verdict can constitute fundamental error. State v. 

Davis, 206 Ariz. 377, 390, ¶ 64 (2003).

¶37 Here, Defendant did not face a duplicitous charge and its 

attendant problems. The State charged him with a single count of 

possession of narcotic drugs for sale pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3408(A)(2). 

Had the State charged him with a single count of sale of narcotic drugs under 

A.R.S. § 13-3408(A)(7), the evidence presented in this case regarding the 

separate sales to D.S. and A.C. could have resulted in a duplicitous charge. 

However, based on the charge in the indictment, the separate sales served 

as circumstantial evidence that Defendant committed one criminal act, 

possessing narcotics for sale. Moreover, Defendant challenged the charge 

by arguing he possessed the narcotics for personal use. Thus, the court’s 

failure to cure whatever defect occurred as a result of the evidence of 

multiple sales did not deny Defendant his right to present his defense. 

Defendant, therefore, suffered no prejudice. See State v. Whitney, 159 Ariz. 

476, 480. No fundamental error occurred. 

V. Sentence

¶38 Defendant asserts, and the State concedes, that the trial court 

incorrectly calculated Defendant’s time served. We agree. The record 

reveals that Defendant was taken into custody on July 25, 2012. He 

remained in custody until he was sentenced on February 14, 2014. 

Defendant, therefore, was incarcerated for a total of 569 days prior to 

sentencing, and he should be awarded one additional day of presentence 

incarceration credit. We modify the sentence accordingly. See Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 31.17(b); State v. Stevens, 173 Ariz. 494, 495–96 (App. 1992) 

(correcting a miscalculation in credit by modifying the sentence without 

remanding to the trial court).
STATE v. CRAMER

Decision of the Court

12

CONCLUSION

¶39 We award Defendant an additional day of presentence 

incarceration credit. In all other respects, Defendant’s convictions and 

sentences are affirmed.