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. N A TH A N A N D RE S LEY V A S, A p p e llan t. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C R 2007- 0340

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
- 20064780 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 A m yM
. T hor s on
I s abel G
. G ar ci a, Pi m a C ount yL egal D efe nder B yS c o tt A . M a rtin T ucs on A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

T ucs on A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant
P E L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge. ¶1 A f

ter a ju ry trial, N a th a n L e yv a s w a s c o n v icte d o f f iv e c o u n ts o f

se x u a l as sa u lt
an d tw o co u n ts eac h o f k idn ap p ing , assa u lt , an d att em p ted a rm ed rob b ery . T h e tri al co u rt M A R 30 2 009 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOS ta te v . D e ss u re a u lt , 1 0 4 A ri z. 38 0 , 4 5 3 P
. 2 d 9 5 1 (19 6 9 ). 1 D eoxyr i bonucl ei c ac i d. 2 2 sent enced him t o co nsecuti ve an d co ncu rr ent, presum pti ve pri son t erm s tot al i ng fort yy ears . O n appea l , L eyvas cont ends t he courterr ed byal l ow i ng a w i t nes s t o i dent i fy hi m att r i al
w i t houtfi r s thavi ng hel d a D e ss u re a u lt hear i ng and bydeny i ng hi s m ot i on forj udgm entof 1
a c q u i t t a l o n t h e t wo a t t e mp t e d a r me d r o b b e r yc h a r g e s . W e a f f i r m. Backg r ound ¶2 “W e view t he fa ct s and all reas on able i nferences t herefrom i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o uphol di ng t he ver di ct s . ” S ta te v . T a m p lin , 195 A r i z. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P. 2d 914, 914 (A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). O n e e v en ing in D ec em b er 2 0 0 6 , the v ict im s, tw o fe m ale co ll eg e stu d en ts, w ere
w al ki ng i n a Tucson c i t ypar k w hen a m an ri di ng a bi cy cl e thr eat ened them w i t h a gun and
su b seq u en tl ysex u all yassa u lt ed b o th o f th em m u lt iple ti m es. A t on e p o int th e w o m en h ea rd t h e ma n o p e n a wr a p p e r , p o s s i b l yc o n t a i n i n g a c o n d o m. ¶3 A f

terth e a ss a u lts, the m a n a sk e d if e ith e r w o m a n h a d a n ym o n e y . T h e ysa id no, and he then al l ow ed them to w al k aw ay . W hen theyr eal i zed he w as no l ongerbehi nd t hem, t hey r an t o a conveni ence s t or e and cal l ed 911. Pol i ce t ook t he vi ct i m s fo r m edi cal
e x a m in a tio n s, b u t n o m a le D N A e v id e n c e w a s e v e r f o u n d . B o th v ictim s d e s c r ib e d th e ir 2
assa il an t as a sk inn y H ispa n ic m ale i n h is ea rl y tw en ti es w h o w as w ea ri n g a g raysw ea tshirt
a n d g ra yb e a n ie c a p . ¶4 A fter L ey v as b ec am e a su sp ec t, p o li ce sea rch ed h is be d ro o m at his p are n t’ s ho use and fou nd an airpis t ol, g ra y b e a n ie, graysw eat shi rt , and a con do m . P oli ce al soOn e v i c t i m, wh o b e f o r e t r i a l h a d n o tb e e n as ke d t o i d e n t i f yt h e a s s a i l a n tf

r o m a 3 phot ogr aphi c orl i ve l i neup, t es t i fi ed thatL eyvas “mat ch[e d] t he desc r i pt i on of the per s on” s he had de s cr i bed t o pol i ce. W hen the othervi ct i m w as ask ed i f s he s aw “anybodyi n t he cour t r oom t hat[s he] r ecogni ze[ d] as bei ng fr om t hat eveni ng, ” s he s ai d s he di d notknow but d id n o t “ th in k s o .” 3 s ear ched hi s gi r l fr i end’ s hous e and f ound t he m ount ai n bi cy cl e t hat L eyvas had us ed on the nightof the assaul t s. ¶5 L eyvas ’ s defe ns e at t r i al w as m i s t aken i dent i t y . N ei t her of t he tw o vi ct i m s w as abl e t o pos i ti v ely iden ti fyhi m as t he as s ai l ant . B uta fe m al e j ogger , M
. , w ho t w i ce that 3

n igh t had p asse d b ya m an o n a b icy cle, i d en ti fied L ey v as a s the m an sh e h ad see n at t h e p ark on the n igh t of t he cr i m es . A few w eeks befor e tr i al , and abouts even mont hs aft ert he crim es, a d etec ti v e sh o w ed M
. a six -pe rson p h o tog rap h ic l ineu p th a t in clud ed L ey v as’s p h o tog rap h
. M
. iden ti fied an o ther m an as th e p erso n sh e h ad see n at th e p ark that n igh t. In
a s u b s e q u e n t p re tr ia l in te rv ie w , th e p ro s e c u to r t o ld M . s h e h a d “ id e n tif ie d th e w ro n g p e rs o n .” ¶6 B e f

o r e t r i a l , c i t i n g o n l y D e ss u re a u lt , L eyvas m oved t o pr ecl ude M
. fr om i dent i fy i ng hi m i n cour t on t he ground t hat any s uch i dent i fi cat i on w oul d be t ai nt ed byt he pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent . A ft era bri ef di s cus s i on, and w hen Ley vas w as unabl e t o pr oduce a ny “ana l ogous ” ca s e l aw , t he tr i al cour tdet er m i ned D e ss u re a u lt di d notappl y“t o t hi s fac t si tuati on ” and al l ow ed M
. t o i den t i fy L ey vas att ri al
. T hat i den t i fi cat i on occu rr ed fo r the fir st t i m e on r edi r ect exami nat i on and then aga i n i n r es pons e t o ques t i ons byt he j ur y , w hen M
. ans w er ed she w as s ur e L eyvas w as t he m an she had s een at t he par k. M
. fur t hert es t i fi ed s he had “[ n] ot[bee n] veryconfi dentatal l ” w hen s he pr evi ous l y had i dent i fi ed a di ffe r entm an in the p h o tog rap h ic l ineu p . S h e a ls o id en ti fied the m o u n tai n b icy cle f o u n d at L ey v as’s4

g irlfr ien d ’s h o u se a s th e o n e sh e h a d se e n th e m a n rid in g a t th e p a rk a n d te stif ied th a t a
r ecor di ng of Ley vas ’ s voi ce w as cons i s t entw i t h t he voi ce “ t one r ange” of the man w ho had
s poken t o herw hi l e s he j ogged. D i s cus s i on I . I n- court i dent i f

i cat i on ¶7 L ey v as c o n tend s h is du e p roc ess righ ts w e re v iolated w h en the tri al co u rt al l ow ed M
. t o i dent i fyhi m in co u r tw i t houtfi r s thavi ng hel d a D e ss u re a u lt h e a rin g to det er m i ne w hethert he pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e w as undul ys ugges t i ve and, i f s o,
w hethert hat w oul d t ai nt any pr opos ed i n- cour t i dent i fi cat i on byM
. H e ac know l edges t hat t he pre t r i al phot ogr aphi c l i neup, i n w hi ch M
. “i dent i fi ed a pi ctur e of a not herm an, ” w as not
s ugges t i ve. N onethel ess, L eyvas ar gues , t he pr os ecut or ’ s l at ert el l i ng M
. “s he had c hos en t he w r ong m an’ s phot o” “w as s uffi ci entt o t r i ggert he D e ss u re a u lt par adi gm , ” “r equi r [i ng] t he tr i al cour tt o m ake a n i ni ti al d et er m i nat i on w hethert he pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on
c ir c u m s ta n c e s w e re u n d u ly su g g e s tiv e .” ¶8 T h e sta te a rg u e s, a s it d id b e lo w , tha t D e ss u re a u lt does notappl ybeca us e M
. had fa i l ed t o i dent i fyL eyvas i n t he pr etr i al phot ogr aphi c l i neup. Si m i l ar l y , i n deny i ng L eyvas ’ s m ot i on t o pr ecl ude M
. from i dent i fy i ng hi m att r i al , t he tr i al cour tacc ept ed the
s t at e’ s ar gum entt hatan al l egedl y“s ugges t i ve noni dent i fi cat i on” does not“fa l l [] under D e ss [ u ] re a u lt
. ” W e do notfi nd D e ss u re a u lt nece s s ar i l yl i m i t ed t o s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch an
a lle g e d ly su g g e s tiv e p re tr ia l id e n tif ic a tio n o f th e d e f e n d a n t h a s o c c u rr e d
. See Stat e v. M yers , 117 A r i z. 79, 83- 84, 570 P. 2d 1252, 1256- 57 ( 1977) ( aft er hear i ng atw hi ch vi ct i m addr es s ed5

circu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing h is ob serv ati o n o f o ff en d er a t t im e o f c ri m e, victi m ’s i dent i fi cat i on of def

endantal l ow ed at t r i al even t hough vi ct i m “had been una bl e t o i dent i fy t he def endanti n a phot o l i neup ori n a l i ve li n eu p ” b ef or e tr i al and had s el ect ed another p e rso n in th e liv e lin e u p ); cf

. St at e v. A l exande r , 1 0 8 A r i z. 556, 564, 503 P. 2d 777, 785 (1 9 7 2 ) (c o m m e n ts m a d e to w itn e ss e s th a t th e yh a d “ se lec ted th e w ro n g p h o to ” in p h o to g ra p h ic lin e u p o n e o f m u ltip le , re le v a n t f

a c to rs c o n tr ib u tin g to f in d in g o f “ ille g a l,” undul ys ugges t i ve pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e; wi tn e s s e s e v e n tu a l l yi d e n t i f i e d d e f e n d ant i n s econd, pr etr i al phot ogr aphi c l i neup, and D e ss u re a u lt hear i ng hel d)
. B utw e fi nd no
r ever s i bl e err orundert he part i cul arci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e. ¶9 W e re v iew the tri al co u rt ’s de n ial o f L ey v as’s m o ti o n to p rec lud e M
. ’s i n -co u rt id e n tif ic a tio n f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See St at e v. P r i on , 203 A r i z. 157, ¶ 14, 52 P. 3d 189, 192 ( 2002)
. A nd, “[w ] e r evi ew t he fai r nes s and r el i abi l i t yof a c hal l enged i dent i fi cat i on for cl earabus e of di s cr et i on. ” St at e v. Lehr , 2 0 1 A ri z. 50 9 , ¶ 4 6 , 3 8 P
. 3 d 1 1 7 2 , 1 1 8 3 (20 0 2 ). B u t w e re v iew d e n o v o th e q u e stio n w h e th e r a c o m m o n law p ro c e d u ra l ru le w ith
cons t i tut i onal underpi nni ngs , s uch as t hats et fo rt h i n D e ss u re a u lt , appl i es t o a part i cul ar fa ctua l sce n ar io
. S e e S ta te v . N e w e ll , 212 A r i z. 389, ¶¶ 27- 28, 132 P. 3d 833, 841 ( 2006) (l eg al qu esti o n w h ethe r Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 3 8 4 U .S
. 4 3 6 (1 9 6 6 ), a p p lies to sp e c if ic f a c ts
o f c a se re v iew e d d e n o v o ); St at e v. R os engr en , 199 A r i z. 112, ¶ 9, 14 P. 3d 303, 307 ( A pp. 2 0 0 0 ) (d u e p ro c e ss c laim s re v iew e d d e n o v o ); c f. S ta te v . A

p e lt , 176 A r i z. 349, 362, 861 P. 2d 634, 647 ( 1993) ( “W e agr ee w i t h t he tr i al cour t t hat t he i dent i fi cat i on i n t hi s cas e does not
come w i t hi n t he ambi tof D e ss u re a u lt
. ”).6

¶10 “ T h e c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t’ s d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts in c lu d e th e rig h t to a f a ir i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e. ” S ta te v . N ieto , 118 A r i z. 603, 605, 578 P. 2d 1032, 1 0 3 4 ( A pp. 1 9 7 8 ); s e e a l

s o S t at e v. B r ady , 145 A r i z. 520, 530, 703 P. 2d 464, 474 ( 1985)
. “The D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment r equires us t o ens ur e thatanypr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedu r es ar e conduc t ed i n a mannert hati s fundament al l yfai rand s ecur es t he sus pect ’ s r i ght t o a fai r t r i al
. ” Lehr , 201 A r i z. 509, ¶ 46, 38 P. 3d at1183. E ven w hen “a pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e i s over l ys ugges t i ve, h o w ever , [that ] does notbart he
a d mi s s i o n o f a n i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n . ” Id
. “ In ste a d , the q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e id e n tific a tio n is
r el i abl e i n s pi t e of a nys ugges t i venes s . ” I d. “Thus, t her e i s a t w o- part t es tfordet er m i ni ng admi s s i bi l i t y : ( 1) w hether t he m ethod or pr ocedur e us ed [i n t he pr etr i al pr ocedu res] w as undul ys ugges t i ve, and ( 2) even i f undul ys ugges t i ve, w hetheri tl ed t o a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood of m i s i dent i fi cat i on, i
. e. , w hetheri tw as r el iable. ” Id .; s ee al s o Mans on v. B ra th w a ite , 4 3 2 U
. S
. 9 8 , 1 1 4 (19 7 7 ). ¶11 I n D e ss u re a u lt , abo ut ni ne h ou rs aft er an arm ed robb ery , t he v i ct i m / w i t ness i dent i fi ed the def

endanti n a l i ve l i neup t hat i ncl uded hi m and t hr ee ot her s . 104 A r i z. at382, 4 5 3 P .2 d a t 9 5 3 . A t tr ia l, th e v i c t i m a g a in id e n tif ie d D e s s u re a u lt a s th e ro b b e r. Id
. O ur
s upr eme cour tdet er m i ned thatt he pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e w as undul ys ugges t i ve beca us e D es s ur eaul tw as t he onl y per s on i n t he l i neup w ho had a m ous t ache and a be ar d, as h a d th e ro b b e r. Id . at 3 8 3 , 4 5 3 P .2 d a t 9 5 4 . U n d e r th e c irc u m s ta n c e s, th e c o u rt h e ld th a t, “al t hough t he pre t r i al i dent i fi cat i on w as undul y s ugges t i ve, t he i n- cour t i dent i fi cat i on had an i ndepende nts our ce othert han the l i neup. ” Id . a t 3 8 4 , 4 5 3 P .2 d a t 9 5 5 . B e c a u se th e leg a lly7

fl aw ed pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on “w as notconduci ve t o i r r epar abl e mi s t aken i dent i fi cat i on, ” and beca us e the vi ct i m ’ s “i dent i fi cat i on w as p o sit ive and une qui vocal l ym ade f r om t he d e f e n d a n t’ s f

a c e ,” th e c o u rt f

o u n d n o re v e rs ib le e rr o r. Id
. at385, 453 P. 2d at956. ¶12 R efe r r i ng t o s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch “pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i ons ” of de fenda nt s have b e e n m a d e , id
. at383, 453 P. 2d at954, t he cour t s et for t h t he fol l ow i ng “ef fec t i ve pr ocedur es att he tr i al cour tl evel ”:

F i rst , if a t th e trial th e p ro p o se d in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n is c h a llen g e d , the trial ju d g e m u st im m e d ia te ly h o ld a h e a rin g in t he abs ence of the j ur yt o det er m i ne fr om cl earand convi nci ng evidence w hetheri tcon t ai ned un du l ysugg est i ve cir cum st ances. I n thi s t he burde n i s on t he pr os ecut i on t o es t abl i s h fr om al l t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he pre t r i al i dent i fi cat i on t hati tw as nots uch as t o be undul ys ugges t i ve. Second , if t h e tri al j u d g e c o n clud es th atthe ci r cumst ance s of t he pre tr i al i dent i fi cat i on w er e undul y s ugges t i ve or thatt he pr os ecut i on has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat t hey w er e not , t hen i ti s t he pr os ecut i on’ s bur den t o s at i s fy t he t r i al j udge fr om cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t hat t he pr opos ed i n- cour t i dent i fi cat i on i s not t ai nt ed bythe pri or i dent i fi cat i on. T hir d , i f r eques t ed, t he courtm us tinst ructt he j ur yt hat befor e r etur ni ng a ver di ctof gui l t yi tm us tbe s at i s fi ed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat t he i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on w as i ndepende ntof t he pre vi ous pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on ori f not der i ved fr om an i ndepende nts our ce, i tm us tfi nd fr om ot her evi dence i n t he ca s e thatt he def endanti s t he gui l t yper s on b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. Id . at 3 8 4 , 4 5 3 P .2 d a t 9 5 5
. R e f e rrin g to th o se p ro c e d u re s as a “ p a ra d ig m ,” a n d b a se d so lely
o n the p rose cu tor’s ha v ing told M
. b ef o re tri al th at s h e h a d c h o sen the w ron g m an ’sT hough not di s pos i t i ve, w e not e L eyvas never as ked t he t r i al cour tt o hol d a pr etr i al 4 hear i ng t o pr obe anyof t he i s s ues he now r ai s es . H i s crypt i c mot i on t o pr ecl ude had onl yone ai m
— t o pr eventM
. fr om i dent i fy i ng hi m att r i al beca us e of the t ai nt al l egedl y caus ed byt he p ro se c u to r’s e a rlier c o m m e n t to h e r. W h e n , a s h e re , a f a c tu a l sc e n a rio d o e s n o t f a ll sq u a re ly w i t hi n D e ss u re a u lt , a d e f e n d a n t sh o u ld sp e c if

ica lly re q u e st a h e a rin g , ex p lain in g w h yit i s n e e d e d a n d w h a t r e le v a n t to p ic s w ill b e e x p lo re d
. S e e S ta te v . R e id , 114 A r i z. 16, 25- 26, 559 P. 2d 136, 145- 46 ( 1976) ( t r i al cour ts houl d have he l d pr etr i al evi dent i aryh ea ri n g, 8 phot ogr aph i n t he l i neup, L eyvas ar gues “[t ] he pre t r i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e in to to in th is
cas e w as cert ai nl ys ugges t i ve, t r i gger i ng a D e ss u re a u lt i nqui r y . ” W e di s agr ee. ¶13 “The r equi r ement s of D e ss u re a u lt ar e s equent i al , ” tr i gger ed onl y i f and w hen
a d e te rm in a tio n is m a d e th a t a p re tr ia l id e n tif ic a tio n p ro c e d u re w a s u n d u ly su g g e s tiv e . S ta te
v . H a rr is , 2 3 A riz . A p p . 3 5 8 , 3 5 9 , 5 3 3 P .2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 0 (1 9 7 5 ). A s th is c o u r t e x p lain e d in H a rr is : [I ] f t he tr i al cour tfi nds t hatt he pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on w as not

undul ys ugges t i ve, i tneed not do anyof the fol l ow i ng: ( a) [d] et er m i ne w hetheran i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on w as tai nt ed; ( b) i ns t ructt hatt he j ur ym us tbe s at i s fi ed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt t hatt he i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on w as i ndepende nt ; and ( c) i ns t ruct t hatt he j ur ym us tbe s at i s fi ed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he p retri al i d en ti fica ti o n w as f air. Id . at 3 6 0 , 5 3 3 P .2 d a t 5 7 1 ; s ee al s o St at e v. Tayl or , 27 A r i z. A pp. 330, 333, 554 P. 2d 926, 929 ( 1976) ( w hen pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur es not undul ys ugges t i ve, “ther e i s no need t o det er m i ne w hethert he r equi r ement s of [ D e ss u re a u lt ] w ere m et”) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶14 F o r th e re a so n s se t f o rth b e lo w , w e a g re e w ith th e trial c o u rt th a t D e ss u re a u lt d o es n o t app lyto the p arti cu lar situ ati o n p rese n ted h ere . A cc o rdin g ly , w e c o n clud e the co u rt d id n o t er r in f

a ili n g to c o n d u c t a p re trial D e s su re a u lt hear i ng ort o fol l ow t he other pr ocedur al s t eps out l i ned i n t hatcas e. 4s peci fi cal l yr eques t ed and ful l yexpl ai ned bydefe ns e, t o det er m i ne i f w i t nes s ’ s i dent i fi cat i on

o f d ef en d an t at p reli m inary h ea ri n g tai n ted b yp retri al pro ce d u res); McMill ia n v . S ta te , 265 N
. W
. 2d 553, 558 ( W i s . 1978) ( al t hough defe ndantuns ucce s s ful l yobj ect ed t o admi s s i on of i n- cour t i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m ony , any r i ghtt o D e ss u re a u lt
- t ype hea r i ng w as w ai ved “s i nce n o re q u e st w a s m a d e ” f

o r su c h h e a rin g ); cf

. St at e v. C ar tw r ight , 155 A r i z. 308, 311, 312, 746 P .2 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 , 4 8 2 (1 9 8 7 ) (n o e rro r in f a ili n g to in c lu d e w itn e ss in p re trial D e ss u re a u lt hear i ng w hen s he fi r s ti dent i fi ed defenda nt on r edi r ect exami nat i on at t r i al and had “ never part ici p at ed i n a l i ve l i ne- up and neve rm ade a pr e- t r i al i dent i fi cat i on of anyt ype, ” eve n th o u g h sh e m ig h t h a v e b e e n sh o w n p h o to g ra p h s b e f o re trial); St at e v. D om i nguez , 192 A r i z. 464, ¶ 14 , 9 6 7 P. 2d 136, 140 ( A pp. 1998) ( no fundament al err ori n fai l ur e t o gi ve D e ss u re a u lt jury instruction w h en tr ial co u rt m ad e no d eterm ination “th a t a n o u t- o f-c o u rt id e n tific a tio n p ro c e d u re w a s u n d u lysu g g e stiv e ” a n d w h e n “ d e f e n d a n t f a iled to re q u e st a D e ss u re a u lt

h ea ri n g ”). 9 ¶15 Fi r s t , a s n o t e d a b o v e , t h e c o ur t i n D e ss u re a u lt s t at ed that , “i f att he tr i al t he pr opos ed i n- cour ti dent ifi cat i on i s chal l enged, t he tr i al j udge musti m m edi at el yhol d a hear i ng i n t he abs ence of t he j ur yt o det er m i ne fr om cl earand convi nci ng evi dence w hether i tcont ai ned undul ys ugges t i ve ci r cumst ance s . ” 104 A r i z. at384, 453 P. 2d at 955. B utt he term “it ” in t h at stat em en t m u st h av e refe rred to a w itn ess’s “ p retri al i d en ti fica ti o n , ” a n d h ere th e re w a s n o n e . Id
. B eca us e M
. di d noti dent i fyL eyvas befor e tr i al and had noty etbeen
as ked w hethers he coul d do s o dur i ng t r i al , i ti s not at al l cl earw hatpurpos e w oul d have be en
s er ved byconduct i ng a D e ss u re a u lt hear i ng. A nd, fr om a pr act i cal s t andpoi nt , s uch a hear i ng, conduct ed i n a vac uum , w oul d not r eadi l yfac i l i t at e the tr i al cour t ’ s gaugi ng w hether anypr opos ed i n- cour tiden ti fi cat i on of Ley vas byM
. w oul d s om ehow be t ai nt ed byt he p rose cu tor’s pre tr ial co m m en t t o h er. ¶16 Second, t he pr i m ary conce r ns addr es s ed i n D e ss u re a u lt and i t s pr ogeny , and th e m is c h ie f th o s e c a s e s s e e k to a v o id , a re n o t p re s e n t h e re . G e n e ra lly, “ D e ss u re a u lt d e a ls
w i t h fai r nes s conce r ns t hat ar i s e w hen a w i t nes s ( oft en the vi ct i m ) of a c r i m e i s confr ont ed10

w i t h a l i ve orphot ogr aphi c l i neup and a s ked w hethert he perpetr at or i s among t hem. ” Ap e lt , 176 A r i z. at362, 861 P. 2d at647. T he pr i m aryconce r n ar isi n g fro m t hats cena r i o i s t hat

“ [ u ]n d u lysu g g e stiv e p re trial [ id e n tific a tio n ] p ro c e d u re s m a yu n f a irlyc a u se a w itn e ss to
m i s i dent i fyt he def

endant , and then t o r epea tt he mi s i dent i fi cat i on at t r i al
. ” S ta te v . Sm ith , 1 4 6 A riz . 4 9 1 , 4 9 6 , 7 0 7 P .2 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 4 (1 9 8 5 ); s ee al s o Si m m ons v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 39 0 U. S. 377, 383- 84 ( 1968) ( “R egar dl es s of how t he i ni t i al m i s i denti fica ti on comes a bout , t he
w i t nes s t her eaf

t eri s apt t o r et ai n i n hi s m emory t he i m age of t he phot ogr aph r athert han of t he per s on actual l ys een, r educi ng t he trustw o rt h ines s of s ubs equentl i neup orcour t r oom iden ti fi cat i on. ”)
. A s t he courti n Sm ith s t a t e d , “ Th e ‘ v e r y s u b s t a n t i a l l i k e l i h o o d o f an i r r epar abl e mi s i dent i fi cat i on’ att r i al der i vi ng from s uch an unf ai rpr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on p ro c e d u re is a p ri m a ry d a n g e r t o b e a v o id e d .” 1 4 6 A ri z . a t 4 9 6 , 7 0 7 P .2 d a t 2 9 4 , quot i ng Si m m ons , 3 9 0 U .S . at 3 8 4 ; se e a lso S ta te v . O so rio , 187 A r i z. 579, 581, 931 P. 2d 1089, 1091 (A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); St at e v. Str ong , 185 A r i z. 248, 250, 914 P. 2d 1340, 1342 ( A pp. 1995)
. A gai n, beca us e M
. did noti dent i fyL eyvas befor e tr i al atal l , t hr ough an unfa i rpr ocedur e or
o th e rw ise , t h is c a se d o e s n o t p re se n t th e “ p rim a ryd a n g e r” to w a rd w h ich th e a p p lica b le A ri z o n a d e c is io n s a re d ir e c te d
. Sm ith , 146 A r i z. at496, 707 P. 2d at294. ¶17 T hi r d, w hether a w i t nes s m ay r el i abl ym ake a n “i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on of t he defe ndant , un t a i n t e d b yp r i o ri d e n t i fi cat i on pr ocedur es , i s pr el i m i nar i l ya ques t i on fort he tr i al
cour t w hi ch w i l l not be di s turbed on appea l unl es s t her e i s cl ear and m ani fes t err or . ” Tayl or , 2 7 A riz . A p p . at 3 3 2 , 5 5 4 P .2 d a t 9 2 8 ; se e a lso Sm ith , 146 A ri z. a t 4 97, 707 P. 2d at295; M yers , 1 1 7 A riz . at 8 4 , 5 7 0 P .2 d a t 1 2 5 7
. L e yv a s ac k n o w led g e s “[ t]h e trial c o u rt a p p a re n tly11

det er m i ned that[M
. ’ s ] choi ce of a man ot hert han [Leyvas ] fr om t he phot o l i neup w as not
an undul y s ugges t i ve pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on. ” W e fi nd no “cl earand mani fes terr or ” i n t hat im p lic it d e te rm in a tio n , w h ic h L e yv a s d o e s n o t d ir e c tly c h a lle n g e . Tayl or , 27 A r i z. A pp. at 3 3 2 , 5 5 4 P .2 d a t 9 2 8
. ¶18 H e ar gues , how ever , “the tr i al cour tfai l ed t o con si dert he keyaddi t i onal circu m stan ce s o n w h ich [ h is] D e ss u re a u lt m ot i on w as bas ed”— t he pr osecut or ’ s havi ng inf o rm ed M
. “sh e h ad p icke d the w ron g m an fro m the [p h o tog rap h ic] l ineu p . ” B u t th e c o u rt
w as w ell aw are o f th at fa ct w h en itd en ied L ey v as’s m o ti o n . A n d ev en tho u g h the t ri al co u rt di d notexpr es s l ydet er m i ne w hethert he p rose cu t or ’ s comm entt o M
. r ender ed the pr etr i al id e n tific a tio n p ro c e d u re u n d u ly su g g e stiv e o r oth e rw ise u n c o n stitu tio n a l, w e c o n c lu d e it d id
n o t, b a s e d o n th e s a m e , u n d is p u te d f a c ts b e f o re th a t c o u rt . See St at e v. Money , 110 A r i z. 18, 2 1 , 2 3 , 5 1 4 P .2 d 1 0 1 4 , 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 1 9 (1 9 7 3 ) (su p re m e c o u rt in d e p e n d e n tlye v a lu a ted “ ‘to tality of the ci r cumst ance s ’ s ur r oundi ng t he i dent i fi cat i on pr o cedur e t o det er m i ne w hethert he lin e u p w a s u n d u lysu g g e stiv e ,” c o n c lu d in g it w a s n o t); Tayl or , 27 A r i z. A pp. at332, 333, 55 4 P
. 2d at92 8, 92 9 (noti ng i t s “i nit i al i nq uiryi s t o d et erm i ne w hethert he [ p re trial] p h o tog rap h ic l ineu p w as u n d u lysu g g esti v e,” ap p ell ate c o u rt“d eterm ined ” itw as n o t)
. ¶19 A s not ed ea r l i er , dur i ng a pr etr i al i nt er vi ew t he pr os ecut ort ol d M
. s he had “i dent i fi ed the w r ong per s on” i n t he phot ogr aphi c l i neup show n t o her about s even mont hs aft ert he cr i m e. B utt he r ecor d does notr efl ectt hatt he pr osec u tor ev er st eer ed M
. t o t he “r i ghtper s on. ” C

f

. A l exande r , 108 A r i z. at564, 503 P. 2d at785 (un d u lys ugges t i ve p ro c e d u re f

o u n d w h e n p o lice sh o w e d w itn e ss e s m u lti p le p h o to g ra p h ic lin eup s, detect i ve to ld12

w i t nes s es t heyhad fi r s ts el ect ed w r ong phot o, p o li ce ar t i s tdr ew fac i al hai ront o phot os of d e f e n d a n t b u t n o o th e rs, a n d d e tec tiv e late r to ld w itn e ss e s th e y“ h a d se lec ted th e ‘c o rre c t’ phot o” i n s econd l i neup s es s i on)
. For exampl e, t he r ecor d does nots ugges tt he pr os ecut or
s h o w e d o r t o l d M
. w h ic h p h o to g ra p h in th e lin e u p d e p ic te d L e yv a s . C f

. U ni t ed Stat es v. W oo l ery , 735 F. 2d 818, 821 ( 5t h C i r . 1984) ( “Though t her e i s not hi ng i m pr operi n as ki ng an
uncert ai n w i t nes s t o l ook ata l i ne- up a sec ond t i m e, i t i s unacc ept abl e t o do s o i n a w ayt hat i ndi cat es t o t he w i t nes s w hom he s houl d sel ect . ”)
. N ordoes t he r ecor d s ugges tt he pr os ecut or , ei t herbefor e ordur i ng t r i al , i nfor m ed M
. t hat t he per s on on t r i al , L eyvas , w as t he p erp etrator o r t h e p erso n sh e a ctua ll yh ad see n at t h e p ark o n the n igh t of the c ri m es. In addi t i on, t he r ecor d does notr efl ecthow L eyvas ’ s appea r ance att r i al compar ed t o t he depi ct i on of hi m i n t he phot ogr aphi c l i neup. ¶20 L eyvas m ai nt ai ns , how ever , t hatthe pr os ecut or ’ s havi ng t ol d M
. befor e tr i al sh e h a d se lec ted “ th e w ro n g p e rso n ” in th e p h o to g ra p h ic lin e u p , af ter sh e h a d “ a f

f irm a tiv e ly iden ti fied so m eo n e o ther tha n [h im ], ” “tainted as a m att er o f law ” M
. ’s su b seq u en t i n -co u rt i dent i fi cat i on and “depr i ved hi m of due pr oces s ” beca us e M
. “w as t hen perm i t t ed t o m ake an i dent i fi cat i on att r i al of t he onl yper s on i n t he cour t r oom w hos e pi ctur e had been i n t hat phot o l i neup: [Ley vas ]
. ” C i t i ng Si m m ons and Fost er v. C ali f or n ia , 3 9 4 U
. S
. 4 4 0 (19 6 9 ), L eyvas cont ends t he pr os ecut or ’ s comm en t to M
. r ender ed the pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur es undul ys ugges t i ve beca us e i t gr eat l y i ncr eas ed the l i kel i hood M
. w oul d r ecogni ze L eyvas i n cour tfr om t he fi r s tphot ogr aphi c l i neup and i dent i fyhi m as t he m an she ha d s een i n t he park. B utnot hi ng i n t he r ecor d s uppor t s that h yp o thes i s , and both cas es on w hi ch13

L eyvas r el i es i nvol ved a s i tuat i on w her e the w i t nes s had pos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed the def endant b e f o re trial. ¶21 I n Fos t er , t he w i t nes s fi nal l y i dent i fi ed t he defenda nti n a s econd l i ve l i neup
a f te r f a ilin g to id e n tif

y h im in a p re v io u s lin e u p a n d o n e -t o -o n e c o n f ro n ta tio n . Fos t er , 390 U .S . a t 4 4 3 . A n d th e d e f e n d a n t w a s t h e o n l y p e r s o n w h o a p p e a re d in b o th lin e u p s . Id
. U n d e r th o se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e S u p r e m e C o u rt f o u n d th e p ro c e d u re im p e rm iss ib ly
su g g esti v e b ec au se, “[ i] n ef fe ct, the p o li ce rep ea tedlysaid to the w itn ess, ‘T h is i s the m an . ’” Id
. I n Si m m ons , al l w i t nes s es i dent i fi ed t he defe ndant i n pr etr i al phot ogr aphi c l i neups . 390 U
. S. at382. ¶22 H er e, i n contr as t , M
. di d noti dent i fyL eyvas i n t he pr etr i al pr ocedur e and w as not as ked t o i dent i fyhi m agai n befor e tr i al
. T her efor e, t he mai n conce r n addr es s ed i n Fos t er and Si m m ons
— t hatl aw enfor cementoffi cer s w i l l undul yi nfl uence a w i t ness i n m aki ng a
m i s t aken i dent i fi cat i on and then r epea t i ng t hatm i s i dent i fi cat i on at t r i al

— i s not pr es enther e. S e e Sm ith , 146 A r i z. at496, 707 P. 2d at294. ¶23 I n addi t i on, al t hough w e do notcondone, and i ndeed s t r ongl ydi s cour age, t he pract i ce of

t el l i ng a w i t ness befo re tri al she cho se the “w rong” person i n a li neu p, t hat i s l ess
s u g g e s tiv e o r p ro b le m a tic th a n in f o rm in g h e r s h e m a d e th e “ ri g h t” c h o ic e . See U ni t ed Stat es
v . M o sko w itz , 581 F. 2d 14, 20 ( 2d C i r . 1978)
. A s t he courti n Mo sk o w itze x p lain e d , tha t is beca us e i nfor m i ng a w i t nes s of an i ncorr ectchoi ce “ i s farl es s l i k el yt o pr oduce a n ‘i r r e pa r a bl e mi s i de nt i fi c a t i on ’ be c a us e i tmer e l yna r r ows the fi e l d f r om w hi c h the w i t ne ss
w i l l m ake a s econd s el ect i on, and i tdoes noti nvol ve anyi m pr oper reinf o rcem entor14

confi r m at i on of the s econd s el ect i on i t s el f. ” Id
. B u t s e e U n itedS ta tes v . Ja rv is , 560 F. 2d 494, 500 ( 2d C i r . 1977) ( i nfor m i ng w it n ess of corr ectnes s ori ncorr ectnes s of pr etr i al iden ti fica ti o n m igh t t aint lat er ide n ti fica ti o n so as to req u ir e re v ersa l)
. ¶24 S i m i l arl y , ou r s up rem e cou rt has express ed conce rn that i nfo rm i ng a w i t ness he o r s he ch ose correct l yfrom a l i neu p co uld “ les se n o r e l i m i nate anydo ub t ” t he w i t ness
m ig h t h a v e h a d b e f

o re th e id e n tif

ic a tio n p ro c e d u re . S ta te v . R ich ie , 110 A r i z. 590, 593, 521 P .2 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 3 9 (1 9 7 4 ); s ee al s o Money , 110 A r i z. at 23, 24, 514 P. 2d at1019, 1020 ( pol i ce offi cer ’ s i nfor m i ng vi ct i m s t hey had chose n fr om l i ve l i neup “the ow nerof the ca rw hi ch had b e e n u se d b yth e ir th re e a ss a ilan ts” m ig h t h a v e m a d e th e m m o re c e rta in o f th e ir i dent i fi cat i ons butdi d notunfai r l yt ai ntt hei ri n- cour ti dent i fi cat i ons )
. I n R ich ie , the v ictim i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e r o b b e r s i n a p h o t o g r a p h i c l i n e u p . 1 1 0 Ar i z . a t5 9 1 , 5 2 1 P
. 2 d a t 1 1 3 7
. An offi cert hen t ol d t he vi ct i m befor e the pr el i m i naryhear i ng that “h e had chos en the corr ect pi ctur es and thatt w o of t he s us pect s w er e al r eadyi n cus t ody i ncl udi ng t he defenda nt . ” Id
. T h e tr i al cour tdeni ed the def endant ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he vi ct i m ’ s pr opos ed i n- court i dent i fi cat i on, ur ged on the gr o u n d th a tth e p o l i c e off i cer ’ s comm entt ai nt ed the i dent i fi cat i on p ro c e s s . Id
. I n aff

i r m ing , o u r su pr eme cour tconcl uded, “w her e the l i neup w as not
su g g e stiv e in th e f

irst p lac e , su c h su b se q u e n t co m m e n ts c a n n o t tain t an in iti a llyf a ir i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e or t he i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on. ” Id
. a t 5 9 3 , 5 2 1 P .2 d a t 1 1 3 9 ; see al so S ta te v . M

c D o n a ld , 1 1 1 A riz
. 1 5 9 , 1 6 4 , 5 2 6 P .2 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 3 (1 9 7 4 ); Money , 110 A r i z. at24, 5 1 4 P .2 d a t 1 0 2 0 ; Tayl or , 27 A r i z. A pp. at 333, 554 P. 2d at929. A gai n, i n t hi s cas e no s uchL eyvas fai l ed t o obj ectt o M
. ’ s i n- cour t i dent i fi cat i on at t r i al
. B ut“w her e a mot i on 5 in lim in e is m a d e a n d ru led u p o n , th e o b jec tio n ra ise d in th a t m o tio n is p re se rv e d f o r a p p e a l, des pi t e the abs ence of a s peci fi c obj ect i on att r i al
. ” St at e v. B ur t on , 144 A r i z. 248, 250, 697 P .2 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 3 (1 9 8 5 ); s ee al s o St at e v. R eed , 1 1 4 A ri z. 16 , 2 6 , 5 5 9 P
. 2 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 6 (19 7 6 ).

15 s ugges t i ve orconfi r m at or ycomm ent s w er e ma de t o M
. s o as t o r ei nfor ce a nypr i or id e n tific a tio n o r to n a tu ra llyo r in e v itab lylea d h e r to id e n tifyL e yv a s a t trial. ¶25 W e al s o fi nd s i gni fi cantthatM
. o n lyiden ti fied L ey v as o n red ir ec t exa m inati on, af t erhe had i n tr o d u ced t he phot ogr aphi c l i neup i n evi dence and ques t i oned M
. abouther pr i ori nabi l i t yt o i dent i fyhi m i n t hatl i neup. T hus , heri n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on es s ent i al l yw as 5 pr om pt ed byL eyvas ’ s ow n t r i al s t r at egy and cr os s - exami nat i on. “The i nvi t ed err ordoctr i ne appl i es t o s i tuat ion s w h ere evi dence adduce d orcomm ent s m ade byone part ym ake ot herw i s e i r r el evantevi dence r el evantorr equi r e s om e r es pons e orr ebut t al
. ” St at e v. W i l s on , 1 8 5 A ri z. 25 4 , 2 5 9 , 9 1 4 P
. 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 1 (19 9 5 ). W h en a p arty “o p en [s] the d o o r” to later,
o th e rw is e o b

je c tio n a b le te s tim o n y , th e re is n o e rr o r. S ta te v . G a rc ia , 133 A r i z. 522, 526, 652 P. 2d 1045, 1049 ( 1982)
. B u t w h en errori s i nvi t ed byopeni ng t he door , “the evi dence or
re s p o n s e m u s t b e ‘p e rt in e n t’ ; th a t is , it m u s t b e s p e c if ic a lly r e s p o n s iv e to th e in v ita tio n .” W i l s on , 185 A r i z. at259, 914 P. 2d at1351. ¶26 H e re , M
. d id n o t id e n tify L e yv a s o n d ire c t e x a m in a tio n a n d w a s n o t as k e d to do so. T herefore, no t hing i n the st at e’s dir ecte x a m in at i on of M
. prom pted t he d efen se i nqui r yi nt o i dent i fi cat i on- r el at ed i s s ues on cr os s-ex am i nat i on. B yvol unt ar i l yand
s t r at egi cal l ypr obi ng t hos e i s s ues , L eyvas opened t he doort o t he s t at e’ s r edi r ectexami nat i on,
w hi ch w as “s peci fi cal l y r es pons i ve t o t he i nvi t at i on. ” Id
. A cc o rdin g ly , ev en if M
. ’s i n -co u rt16

i dent i fi cat i on of Ley vas w ere ot herw i s e obj ect i onabl e, L eyvas i nvi t ed anyerr ori n t hat
r egar d. ¶27 B eca us e w e fi nd D e ss u re a u lt inap p li ca b le to the s itu ati o n p rese n ted h ere , M
. ’s i nabi l i t yt o i dent i fyL eyvas befor e t r i al w ent t o her cr edi bi l i t y and t he w ei ght t o be gi ven her te s tim o n y , n o t to th e a d m is s ib ility o f h e r i n -c o u rt id e n tif

ic a tio n . See P r i on , 203 A r i z. 157, ¶ 1 8 , 5 2 P .3 d a t 1 9 3 ; S ta te v . M c C a ll , 1 3 9 A riz . 1 4 7 , 1 5 5 , 6 7 7 P .2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 8 (1 9 8 3 ); see al so M yers , 117 A ri z. a t84- 85, 570 P. 2d at1257- 58 ( “‘ [w ] heneve rpos s i bl e, t he fa ctt hat
w itn e ss e s w e re p re v io u slyu n a b le to id e n tify a d e f e n d a n t s h o u ld p ro p e rlyg o to th e c re d ib ili ty
a n d n o t to th e a d m is s ib ility o f s u b s e q u e n t p o s itiv e in -c o u rt id e n tif ic a tio n s ’” ), q u o tin gP e o p le
v. B el enor , 246 N
. W
. 2d 355, 357 ( M i ch. C t . A pp. 1976) ( al t er at i on i n M yers ); Nie to , 118 A r i z. at606, 578 P. 2d at1035. ¶28 W e f

u rth e r n o te th a t id e n tific a tio n s m a d e f o r th e f irst tim e in c o u rt g e n e ra lly
a re n o t d e e m e d u n d u ly su g g e s tiv e o r i m p e rm is s ib le
. See Cartw r ight , 155 A r i z. at311, 746 P
. 2 d at 4 8 1 (w itn ess n o t inv o lved in p retri al i d en ti fica ti o n p roc ed u re o r D e ss u re a u lt hear i ng
c o u ld n o n e th e les s id e n tify d e f e n d a n t f o r f irst tim e a t trial); St at e v. Meeker , 143 A r i z. 256, 2 6 5 , 6 9 3 P .2 d 9 1 1 , 9 2 0 (1 9 8 4 ) (d e f e n d a n t’s s it tin g a t d e f

e n se tab le w ith sig n th a t sa id

“ d e f e n se ” n o t u n d u lysu g g e stiv e ); M yers , 117 A r i z. at 84, 570 P. 2d at 1257 ( “The l aw does
no tprecl ud e a vict i m f ro m i den t i fy i ng his at t acker, present ed alone, ata l at er t i m e j ust b e c a u se th e v ictim c o u ld n o t id e n tifyth e a ttac k e r in a g ro u p e a r li e r .” ); St at e v. B r ady , 16 A ri z. A p p . 3 9 3 , 3 9 6 , 4 9 3 P
. 2 d 9 3 9 , 9 4 2 (19 7 2 ) (D e ss u re a u lt ’ s l i neup doctr i ne notext ended to in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n s); se e a lso S ta te v . V a len zu e la , 7 2 2 F
. 2 d 1 4 3 1 , 1 4 3 2 (9th C ir
. 1 9 8 3 ).17

T hi s i s b e c a u s e a wi t n e s s who t e s t i f i e s i n c o u r ti s s u b

j e c tt o t h o r o u g h c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i on
a b o u t th e w itn e s s ’s id e n tif ic a tio n te s tim o n y . See Cartw r ight , 155 A r i z. at311, 746 P. 2d at 481 ( no need f

ors econd D e ss u re a u lt

h e a r i n g wh e n wi t n e s s i d e n t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t f o r f i r s tt i me
a t trial a n d w a s th o ro u g h lyc ro ss -e x a m in e d ); s ee al s o P r i on , 203 A r i z. 157, ¶ 17, 52 P. 3d at 1 9 3
. ¶29 H e re , L e yv a s th o ro u g h lyq u e stio n e d M . ab o u t h e r m ista k e n id e n tific a tio n in t he phot ogr aphi c l i neup and how t he pr os ecut or had l at er i nfor m ed hert hats he had c hos en “the w r ong per s on. ” M
. w as exami ned and c r os s - exami ned aboutherl evel of aw ar enes s on t he ni ghti n ques t i on, how oft en and for how l ong s he had obs er ved t he man on t he bi cy cl e,
an d t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s b e t wee n h e r t e s t i mon y a n d h e r e a r l i e r s t a t e me n t t o t h e p o l i ce. She acknow l edged that s he had des cr i bed t he bi cy cl e as a B M X t ype, nota mount ai n bi cy cl e, and th a t s h e h a d th o u g h t t h e m a n h a d b e e n w e a ri n g a h o o d e d s w e a ts h ir t, n o t a b e a n ie c a p . M
. al s o not ed at t r i al t hatni ne mont hs had pas s ed s i nce the cr i m e and thatherm emoryatt r i al
w as notas cl earas i thad bee n s hor t l yaft erthe i nci dent
. A nyconfl i ct s orot herw eakne s s es in h e r t e s tim o n y w e re m a tte rs f o r th e ju ry to c o n s id e r. See Stat e v. N or ds tr om , 200 A r i z. 229, ¶ 2 7 , 2 5 P .3 d 7 1 7 , 7 3 0 (2 0 0 1 ); se e a lso Mc C a ll , 1 3 9 Ar i z . a t 1 5 5 , 6 7 7 P. 2d at 928 ( “a
w i t nes s ’ pr evi ous i nabi l i t yt o i dent i fya def endantgoes t o t he cr edi bi l i t yof the w i t nes s , not the a d m issi b il ityo f su b seq u en t i d en ti fica ti o n s”). ¶30 L eyvas also argues t hat , beca us e the tr i al cour terr ed i n not“fi nd[i ng] t he D e ss u re a u lt par adi gm t r i gger ed on t hes e fact s , i t di d not pr ocee d t o t he s econd D e ss u re a u lt
s t ep: r equi r i ng t he St at e t o pr ove b y cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatt he s ugges t i veL eyvas m ai nt ai ns an appe l l at e courts houl d noteval uat e i n t he fi r s t instanc e the 6 fac t or s l i s t ed i n B igg ers w hen, as her e, t he t r i al cour tdi d nothol d a D e ss u re a u lt hear i ng and, there fo re, ne v er req u ir ed the s tat e to p rov e b yclea r an d co n v incin g ev iden ce that the in -co u rt id e n tif ic a tio n w a s u n ta in te d
. S e e D e ss u re a u lt , 104 A r i z. at 384, 453 P. 2d at 955. W e agr ee t hati n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s
— w hen a D e ss u re a u lt hear i ng i s r equi r ed and c ond u ct ed and then pr ocee ds t o t he sec ond s t ep— i t i s hi ghl y pr efe r abl e for t he t r i al cour tt o rul e on the issue s o f taint an d reli ab il ity o f a pro p o sed in-co u rtiden ti fica ti o n af ter ev alua ti n g the f

ac tors i n B igg ers . S e e Sm ith , 1 4 6 A riz
. a t 4 9 7 , 7 0 7 P .2 d a t 2 9 5 ; M yers , 117 A r i z. at84, 570 P. 2d at1257. B ut i f t he appel l at e cour tcan de t er m i ne “f r om t he r ecor d on cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat t he i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on w as nott ai nt ed byt he pr i ori dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur es

. . . t he convi ct i on w i l l be af fi r m ed. ” D e ss u re a u lt , 104 A r i z. at 384, 453 P. 2d at955. O t her appel l at e court s have e xami ned the B igg ers fac tors, b ase d on t he tr i al cour tr ecor d, w hen cons i der i ng w hetheran i n- cour ti dent i fi cat ion w as r el i abl e undert he t ot al i t yof t he c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Lehr , 201 A r i z. 509, ¶¶ 48- 52, 38 P. 3d at1184; Nieto , 118 A r i z. at605- 06, 578 P. 2d at1034- 35 ( al t hough no D e ss u re a u lt hear i ng, appel l at e courteval uat ed B igg ers f a c to rs to d e ter m in e re liab ili tyo f id e n tific a tio n a t p re trial h e a rin g ); see a l so Stat e v. T

resi ze , 127 A ri z. 5 7 1, 574- 75, 623 P. 2d 1, 4- 5 ( 1980)
. L eyvas neverchal l enged the r el i abi l i t yof M
. ’s i n-court i den t i fi cat i on of hi m , no r w as t he tri al cou rt request ed o r r equ i red t o ad dress t hat i s s ue. T her efor e, w e l i kew i s e nee d notaddr es s t he B igg ers f a c to rs h e re . In a n ye v e n t, bas ed on the t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s , w e cannot s ay t he pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e, even if undul ys ugges t i ve, “l ed t o a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood of [M
. ’ s ] m i s i dent i fi cat i on” of L e y v a s a t tr ia l. Lehr , 2 0 1 A riz . 5 0 9 , ¶ 4 6 , 3 8 P .3 d a t 1 1 8 3 ; se e a lso Nieto , 118 A r i z. at605, 5 7 8 P
. 2 d at 10 3 4 (co u rt s co n side r t o tal ityo f c ir c u m s ta n c es to d eterm ine w h ethe r ve ry su b sta n tial lik e lih o o d d e f e n d a n t m isid e n tifie d ); cf

. A l exande r , 108 A r i z. at564, 503 P. 2d at 78 5. A bsent s uch a show i ng , L ey vas did no test abli sh a viol at i on of h i s due p rocess ri gh t s. S e e S t a t e v . Wi l l i a ms , 1 6 6 A ri z. 13 2 , 1 3 7 , 8 0 0 P
. 2 d 1 2 4 0 , 1 2 4 5 (19 8 7 ). 18 pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e di d not t ai nt t he propos ed i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on. ” See ¶ 12, supra . A s L e yv a s c o rr e c tly n o te s , D e ss u re a u lt ’ s “s econd s t ep i s acc om pl i s hed us i ng t he fac t or s s etfor t h i n N

ei l v. B igg ers , 409 U
. S. 188, [199]
. . . ( 1972)
. ” See Lehr , 201 A r i z. 509, ¶ 48, 38 P. 3d at 1183- 84. H ow ever , beca us e t he t r i al cour tpr oper l yfound D e ss u re a u lt not appl i cabl e and beca us e t he pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e her e w as notundul ys ugges t i ve,
w e nee d notaddr es s w hetherM
. ’ s i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on of Ley vas w as re l i abl e. See i d. ; 6 Sm ith , 146 A r i z. at497, 707 P. 2d at295.L eyvas corr ect l ypoi nt s outt hat , beca us e the t r i al cour tfound D e ss u re a u lt 7 inap p li ca b le, h e w as n o t en title d to an d d id n o t r eq u est “the d ef en se-f av o rab le j u ry i ns t ruct i on m andat ed byt he [ D e ss u re a u lt ] par adi gm ’ s t hi r d s t ep. ” See ¶ 1 2 , supra . C f. Sta te v. St ow , 1 0 9 A ri z. 28 2 , 2 8 4 , 5 0 8 P
. 2 d 1 1 4 4 , 1 1 4 6 (19 7 3 ) (D e ss u re a u lt ju ryin stru c tio n , “if r eques t ed as w as done her e, i s m andat or y ” i n cas es t o w hi ch D e ss u re a u lt appl i es )
. W e not e, h o w e v e r, th e trial c o u rt in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t “ it is ne c e ss a ry a n d in c u m b e n t u p o n th e S tate t o p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was t h e o n e who c o mmi t t e d” t he cr i m es and that , i f t he j ur y“ent er t ai n [ed] anyr eas onabl e doubtas t o t he ques t i on of t he id e n tity o f

th e p e rs o n w h o c o m m itte d th e s e o f f e n s e s , y o u m u s t f

in d th e d e f

e n d a n t n o t g u ilty.” 19 ¶31 Sever al ot herpoi nt s on t he s ubj ectof r el i abi l i t ydes er ve ment i on. Fi r s t , L eyvas
n e v e r re q u e ste d a h e a rin g o u tsid e th e p re se n c e o f th e ju ryto p e rm it th e trial c o u rt to e v a lu a te
an d d eterm ine th e reli ab il ity o f an y in-co u rt iden ti fica ti o n M
. m igh t m ak e. S ec o n d , af ter M
. i dent i fi ed Ley vas on r edi r ectexami nat i on as t he man she had s een at t he par k on t he ni ght i n ques t i on, he di d notobj ectt o that test im o n y orm ove t o s t r i ke i ton t he gr ound of
unr el i ab il i t yt hathe now ur ges . T hi r d, w e fi nd pur el ys pecul at i ve Ley vas ’ s ar gum entt hat “t he St a t e w ou l d no t ha ve be e n a bl e t o pr ov e by c l e a r a nd c on vi nc i ng e vi de nc e . . . [M
. ’s ]
s ubs equenti n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on of [hi m ] w as nott ai nt ed byt he s ugges t i ve pr ocedur e, ” had i tbeen r equi r ed t o d o so . A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ectL eyvas ’ s cont ent i on t hathi s convi ct i ons
m us t be r ever s ed bec aus e M
. ’ s i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on of hi m w as t ai nt ed and unr el i abl e as
a ma t t e ro f

l a w. 7 ¶32 In su m , the “ e f f e c ti v e p r o c e d u re s a t th e trial c o u rt lev e l,” a s o u tli n e d in D e ss u re a u lt , 104 A r i z. at 384, 453 P. 2d at 955, ar guabl y m i ght appl y even w hen, as her e, no pr etr i al i dent i fi cat i on has occurr ed. B ut , under t he ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed her e, w e ca nnot
s ayt he tr i al cour terr ed i n fi ndi ng D e ss u re a u lt inap p li ca b le an d , there fo re, de n y ing L ey v as’s
m ot i on t o pr ecl ude M
. ’ s i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on.20

I I . R ul e 20 m ot i on on att em pt ed arm ed robbery charges ¶33 L eyvas cont ends t he tr i al cour terr oneous l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on, m ade pur s uant t o R ul e 20 , A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. , beca us e the s t at e pr es ent ed i ns uffi ci entevi dence “of a l l t he
e lem e n ts o f

a ttem p ted a rm e d ro b b e ry .” O n a p p e a l, w e re v iew th e c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f a R u le 2 0 m o tio n f

o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See Stat e v. P ar is - Sheldon , 214 A r i z. 500, ¶ 32, 154 P .3 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 6 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). W e w ill re v e rse o n lyif th e re is “ n o su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to
w a rra n t a c o n v ictio n .” A riz . R . C rim . P . 2 0 ; s ee al s o P ar is - Sheldon , 214 A r i z. 500, ¶ 32, 154 P. 3d at1056. “‘ Subst ant i al e v iden ce i s pr oof thatr eas onabl e per s ons coul d acc eptas
s uffi ci entt o s uppor t a concl us i on of a defe ndant ’ s gui l t bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ’ ” S ta te
v . H a ll , 2 0 4 A ri z . 4 4 2 , ¶ 4 9 , 6 5 P .3 d 9 0 , 1 0 2 (2 0 0 3 ), qu oti ngStat e v. Sp ears , 184 A r i z. 277, 290, 908 P. 2d 1062, 1075 ( 1996)
. E vi dence s uffi ci entt o s uppor t a convi ct i on can be di r ect
o r c ir c u m s ta n tia l. St at e v. P ena , 2 0 9 A ri z. 50 3 , ¶ 7 , 1 0 4 P
. 3 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶34 S ect i on 13 -1902 (A ), A
. R
. S
. , provides:

A per s on comm i t s r obberyi f i n t he cour s e of t aki ng any pr oper t yof anotherfr om hi s per s on or i m m edi at e pr es ence and agai ns thi s w i l l , s uch per s on t hr eat ens orus es for ce a gai ns tany p e rso n w ith in ten t e it h e r to c o e rc e su rre n d e r o f p ro p e rtyo r to p r e v e n tr e s i s t a n c e t o s u c h p e r s o n t a k i n g o rr e t a i n i n g p r o p e r t y. S e e a lso S ta te v . B e n e n a ti , 203 A r i z. 235, ¶ 26, 52 P. 3d 804, 811 ( A pp. 2002)
. Sect i on 13- 19 04 (A ), A
. R
. S
. , el evates “robbe ry ” t o “arm ed robb ery ” w hen t he robb er i s ar m ed w i t h, uses,
o r t h re a te n s to u s e a d e a d ly w e a p o n o r s im u la te d d e a d ly w e a p o n . See al so S tate v. Lopez , 158 A r iz. 258, 263, 762 P. 2d 545, 550 ( 1988)
. “The es s ent i al el ement s of an a t t empt ed
ro b b e ry a re (1 ) i n t e n t t o c o m m it r o b b e ry a n d (2 ) a n o v e rt a c t to w a rd s th a t c o m m is s io n .”21

Stat e v . Clark , 1 4 3 A riz . 3 3 2 , 3 3 4 , 6 9 3 P .2 d 9 8 7 , 9 8 9 (A p p . 1 9 8 4 ); s ee al s o A
. R
. S. § 13- 1 0 0 1 (A )(2 ); St at e v. McC ul l ough , 9 4 A ri z. 20 9 , 2 1 0 , 3 8 2 P
. 2 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 3 (19 6 3 ). ¶35 L eyvas argu es t her e “w as no s ubs t ant i al evi dence t hatt he as s ai l anti nt ended t o for ce the w om en t o gi ve hi m t hei r pr oper t y and no s ubs t ant i al evi dence t hat he t ook any
ac ti o n s p lann ed to culm inate i n takin g the victi m s’ p rop erty ” be ca u se h e “inn o cu o u s[ly ]”
a sk e d th e m if

th e yh a d a n ym o n e y . B u t L e yv a s w a s h o ld in g a g u n o r “ sim u late d d e a d ly
w eapon” t hr oughouthi s encount erw i t h t he vi ct i m s . A nd one vi ct i m t es t i fi ed he w as hol di ng i tw hen he a s ked them w hethert heyhad any m oney . T hus , t he evi dence of Ley vas ’ s act i ons and s t at ement s per m i t t ed an i nfer ence t hathe had i nt ended t o t ake pr oper t yfr om t he w om en b yf o rc e . See Stat e v. V

ann , 11 A r i z. A pp. 180, 182, 463 P. 2d 75, 77 ( 1970) ( “W hatt he d e f e n d a n t d o e s o r fa ils to d o a n d w h a t h e sa y s m a y b e e v id e n c e o f w h a t i s g o in g o n in h is
m in d .”); s ee al

s o St at e v. G r eene , 192 A r i z. 431, ¶ 39, 967 P. 2d 106, 115 ( 1998) ( j ur ym ay in f e r sta te o f

m in d f ro m d e f e n d a n t’s b e h a v io r a t o r n e a r tim e o f o f f e n se ). A d d iti o n a lly , h is
r eques t i ng m oneyfr om t he vi ct i m s w hi l e he w as hol di ng a gun w as an act i n fur t her ance of th e c ri m e , s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt h is tw o c o n v ic tio n s f o r a tte m p te d a rm e d ro b b e ry. See Vann , 1 1 A riz . A p p . at 1 8 2 , 4 6 3 P .2 d a t 7 7 ; s ee al s o St at e v. W

i l s on , 120 A r i z. 72, 75, 584 P. 2d 53, 56 ( A pp. 1978) ( gr abbi ng bag w as over t act i n fur t her ance of att empt ed theftand s uffi ci ent t o i nferi nt entt o co m m it crim e)
. T her efor e, t he tr i al cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by d e n y in g h is R u le 2 0 m o tio n o n th e a tte m p te d a rm e d ro b b e ry c h a rg e s .22 D i s posi t i on ¶36 L eyvas ’ s convi ct i ons and s ent ence s 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

____________________________________ PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge