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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOHN ALLEN STAMM, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0789

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201601527

No. P1300CR201700015

The Honorable Jeffrey G. Paupore, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Elizabeth B. N. Garcia

Counsel for Appellee

C. Kenneth Ray II PLLC, Prescott

By C. Kenneth Ray II

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 12-4-2018
STATE v. STAMM

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge James P. Beene and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma 

joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 John Allen Stamm appeals his convictions and sentences for 

assault, disorderly conduct, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and 

harassment. He argues the trial court erred by consolidating his charges for 

trial and admitting recordings of his jail calls in violation of federal law. For 

the following reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND1

¶2 In October 2016, Stamm and his wife, D.S., got into an 

argument. As the argument intensified, Stamm chased D.S. around their 

property. When she locked Stamm out of their home, he forced his way 

back in, yelling, “[w]e’re done. . . I’m going to end it now, and I’m going to 

show you how.” Stamm then walked into his office, where he stored his 

guns. D.S. fled, hearing two gunshots after she ran out of the house. When 

police later surrounded the home, Stamm shot himself. 

¶3 After his release from the hospital, police arrested Stamm.

Although a court had ordered Stamm to neither go near the location of the 

offense nor contact D.S., Stamm called her work many times while in jail.

And, even though he was served with an order of protection requiring him 

to stay away from her workplace, just one day later she saw him slowly 

driving in the alleyway behind her workplace. 

¶4 The State charged Stamm with aggravated assault, unlawful 

discharge of a firearm, and disorderly conduct for the October incident 

(“2016 indictment”). In a subsequent indictment (“2017 indictment”), the 

State charged him with stalking, harassment, aggravated harassment, and 

interfering with a judicial proceeding for his actions following his release 

from the hospital. Stamm filed a motion in limine to preclude the State from 

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93 (2013).
STATE v. STAMM

Decision of the Court

3

admitting testimony relating to the 2016 indictment in the separate trial for 

the 2017 indictment. In response, the State argued that evidence relating to 

the 2016 indictment was both intrinsic to the offenses charged in the 2017 

indictment and cross-admissible in both trials under Arizona Rule of 

Evidence 404(b). After a hearing, the trial court concluded the evidence was 

intrinsic because it directly proved the charged offense. Soon after, the State 

moved to consolidate the cases for trial under Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure (“Rule”) 13.3. Granting the motion to consolidate over Stamm’s 

objection, the court reaffirmed its earlier finding that the evidence was 

intrinsic and alternatively found that the evidence would be crossadmissible under 404(b). 

¶5 After consolidation, Stamm filed motions to suppress 

recordings of his jailhouse calls at trial, arguing the recordings should be 

excluded because the State obtained them in violation of federal law. The 

court denied Stamm’s motions. 

¶6 A jury found Stamm guilty of (1) assault (as a lesser-included 

offense); (2) disorderly conduct; (3) harassment; and (4) unlawful discharge 

of a firearm but acquitted him on the remaining charges. The trial court

sentenced Stamm to time served for assault and harassment; 1.75 years’ 

imprisonment for a disorderly conduct charge; and three years’ probation 

for unlawful discharge of a firearm. This timely appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

A. Joinder of Charges 

¶7 Stamm first argues the court erred by consolidating the 

offenses charged in the two indictments and denying his motions to sever. 

We review these rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hausner, 230 

Ariz. 60, 74, ¶ 43 (2003) (citation omitted). We proceed in two steps, first 

asking “if the joinder and denial of severance were proper under Rules 13.3 

and 13.4” and, if not, asking “whether the error requires reversal.” State v. 

Garland, 191 Ariz. 213, 216, ¶ 9 (App. 1998) (citations omitted). A court may 

join offenses if any ground listed in Rule 13.3(a) is satisfied, and need not 

grant severance unless “necessary to promote a fair determination of . . . 

guilt or innocence of any offense.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 13.4(a); Hausner, 230 

Ariz. at 74, ¶ 44. “In considering whether the trial court erred . . . we are 

mindful that the trial court exercises considerable discretion in determining 

whether, in light of the evidence then before the court, the defendant has made 

the requisite showing of prejudice.” State v. Van Winkle, 186 Ariz. 336, 339

(1996) (emphasis added). 
STATE v. STAMM

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 Offenses may be joined if they “are based on the same conduct 

or are otherwise connected together in their commission.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

13.3(a)(2). Offenses are “otherwise connected” when they arise “out of a 

series of connected acts, and the evidence as to each count, of necessity, 

overlaps” or “where most of the evidence admissible in proof of one offense 

[is] also admissible in proof of the other.” Garland, 191 Ariz. at 217, ¶ 14 

(alteration in original) (citation omitted). We agree with the State that this 

ground is satisfied here because much of the evidence relating to the 2016 

indictment would necessarily have overlapped with the crimes charged in 

the 2017 indictment to explain Stamm’s motive and intent, as well as D.S.’s 

state of mind. In short, these two indictments arise “out of a series of 

connected acts, provable by much of the same evidence,” permitting 

joinder. See State v. Prince, 204 Ariz. 156, 160, ¶ 17 (citation omitted).

¶9 Although the offenses were eligible for joinder under Rule 

13.3(a)(2), we must next determine if the trial court erred in proceeding with 

consolidation, which turns on whether severance was necessary to promote 

a fair determination of Stamm’s guilt or innocence. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 13.4(a). 

A defendant is not prejudiced when introduction of the joined evidence 

would be permitted “for an evidentiary purpose anyway.” State v. Stuard,

176 Ariz. 589, 597 (1993) (quoting Morris K. Udall et al., Arizona Practice—

Law of Evidence § 84, at 184 n.14 (3d ed. 1991)). Here, the court’s 

simultaneous finding that the evidence would be admissible under 404(b) 

plainly demonstrates that, in light of the evidence then before it, Stamm 

failed to make the requisite showing of prejudice. See Van Winkle, 186 Ariz. 

at 339. Stamm has neither challenged the court’s 404(b) finding in this 

appeal nor otherwise provided us with a compelling reason to disturb the 

court’s exercise of discretion. Accordingly, Stamm has not shown the court 

erred in joining the charges or in denying his request to sever.

2

B. Admission of Recorded Calls

¶10 While Stamm was in jail, the facilities—according to standard 

procedure—recorded his outgoing telephone calls. Stamm argues the 

recording of these calls violated Title 18 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”) 

section 2511, which criminalizes, inter alia, the unlawful interception of oral 

communications. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(b), (4)(a). He contends the recordings 

should have been suppressed according to the exclusionary rule codified at 

 

2 Because we must affirm the trial court’s ruling if legally correct for 

any reason, State v. Boteo-Flores, 230 Ariz. 551, 553, ¶ 7 (App. 2012), we do

not address Stamm’s additional argument that the evidence was not 

intrinsic under State v. Ferrero, 229 Ariz. 239 (2012). 
STATE v. STAMM

Decision of the Court

5

18 U.S.C. § 2515. Applying our de novo review, Payne, 233 Ariz. at 505, 

¶ 68, we conclude that 18 U.S.C. § 2515 does not apply here because it

protects only “oral communication[s] uttered by a person exhibiting an 

expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under 

circumstances justifying such expectation,” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2), and Stamm 

had no justifiable expectation that his communications would not be 

intercepted. Before being able to use the jail telephone system, the record 

shows that inmates “understand and agree the telephone calls are subject 

to monitoring and recording and may be intercepted or divulged.” 

Additionally, any inmate making a call receives a notification that the call 

would be subject to “monitoring and/or recording.” Thus, 18 U.S.C. § 2515 

does not require suppression of Stamm’s recorded calls.

CONCLUSION

¶11 Stamm’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.