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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TYLER RICHARD MILLS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0403

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-156859-001

The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By William Scott Simon

Counsel for Appellee

The Stavris Law Firm PLLC, Scottsdale

By Alison Stavris

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 7-18-2019
STATE v. MILLS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Tyler Richard Mills appeals his convictions and sentences for 

possession of narcotic drugs for sale, possession of drug paraphernalia,

conspiracy, forgery, and other related offenses. Mills argues that the trial 

court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial after two jurors 

conversed with representatives from the State. Mills also challenges a count 

of possession of drug paraphernalia as duplicitous. For the following 

reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶2 In May 2014, Mills was evicted from a hotel after he violated 

hotel policy. Hotel employees notified police after they discovered 

suspected heroin and drug paraphernalia in the room that Mills had 

occupied. Subsequently, police found heroin, $200 in counterfeit currency, 

$990 in real currency, and multiple items of drug paraphernalia, including 

two digital scales. Mills was arrested and charged with multiple counts, 

including possession of drug paraphernalia for the scales. After a three-day

trial, the jury found Mills guilty of all counts. The trial court sentenced Mills 

to concurrent presumptive terms in the Arizona Department of Corrections.

¶3 Mills timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised 

Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

 

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. MILLS

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

Juror Misconduct

¶4 Mills argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion 

for a mistrial after the prosecutor and the State's case agent briefly spoke 

with two jurors. We review a trial court's denial of a motion for a mistrial

for an abuse of discretion. State v. Garcia, 141 Ariz. 580, 583 (App. 1984).

¶5 On the second day of trial, the prosecutor alerted the court to

two brief conversations that had occurred between jurors and agents for the 

State. The prosecutor explained that he was in the elevator with juror 

number 4 and responded when the juror asked how old he was and how 

long he had worked for the county. When the prosecutor recognized that 

she was a juror on the case, he explained that he could not talk with the 

juror. The prosecutor also told the court that juror number 12 conversed 

with the State's case agent about the morning commute before the case 

agent walked into the courtroom. 

¶6 The trial judge questioned the jurors separately. Both jurors 

admitted to speaking to the State's representatives but denied discussing 

the case with them. Juror number 4 added she was just being "social," but 

realized it was inappropriate after the prosecutor "scolded" her. Defense 

counsel requested a mistrial based on these conversations. The court

denied the request because the questions asked by the jurors did not affect 

the case, were just "general questions you would ask anybody," and did not 

cause prejudice to Mills. The judge later admonished the entire jury panel 

about engaging in any conversation—even "pleasantries"—with parties or 

witnesses.

¶7 Conversation between a juror and a witness should be 

avoided to ensure the defendant has a fair and impartial trial. See State v. 

Vasquez, 130 Ariz. 103, 106-07 (1981). But "improper juror communication 

with a witness during trial is not grounds for mistrial unless the defense 

establishes that the misconduct was prejudicial or prejudice may be fairly 

presumed." State v. Apodaca, 166 Ariz. 274, 276 (App. 1990).

¶8 Here, the conversations between the jurors and the State were 

unrelated to the case, brief in length, and social in nature. See Vasquez, 130 

Ariz. at 107 ("Idle conversation relating to subjects unrelated to the case is 

generally not grounds for a mistrial."); State v. Medina, 232 Ariz. 391, 408, ¶ 

67 (2013) (finding no error "[g]iven the brevity of the contact between the 

juror and the victim's daughter and the absence of any discussion 

concerning the case or the defendant"). Acknowledging that the jurors'
STATE v. MILLS

Decision of the Court

4

behavior was not to be condoned, the trial judge determined that the 

conversations did not touch on the trial and, therefore, did not prejudice 

Mills. Because the trial judge was in the best position to asses these 

remarks, we find no abuse of discretion. See Apodaca, 166 Ariz. at 277 (trial 

judge was in best position to find that jurors' remarks to State's witness did 

not prejudice the defendant).

Duplicitous Indictment and Duplicitous Charge

¶9 Count 3 of the indictment charged Mills with using or 

possessing "scale(s)," or drug paraphernalia. Mills argues that the count's 

lack of specificity between a singular scale or multiple scales resulted in a 

duplicitous indictment and a duplicitous charge such that "the real 

possibility of a non-unanimous jury verdict existed." Because Mills failed 

to raise these objections at trial, we review for fundamental error only. See 

State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1, 11, ¶ 28 (2010). To establish fundamental error, 

Mills must show error that either (1) went to the foundation of his case, (2) 

denied him a right essential to his defense, or (3) was so egregious as to 

deny the possibility of a fair trial. State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 142, ¶ 21 

(2018). Under the first two prongs, the defendant also bears the burden of 

showing prejudice. Id. 

¶10 An indictment is duplicitous if it charges "two or more 

distinct and separate offenses in a single count." State v. Klokic, 219 Ariz. 

241, 243, ¶ 10 (App. 2008). An indictment is not duplicitous "if a count 

alleges only one offense, even if that offense may be committed in different 

ways." State v. O'Laughlin, 239 Ariz. 398, 400, ¶ 5 (App. 2016). Similarly, a 

charge is duplicitous when the indictment lists one criminal act, but 

evidence of multiple criminal acts is introduced at trial to prove the charge. 

Klokic, 219 Ariz. at 244, ¶ 12.

¶11 Assuming for argument's sake that the indictment or charge 

was duplicitous, Mills has not demonstrated fundamental error. When the 

indictment was read to the jury after it was empaneled, the court used only 

the plural "scales," and did not include any alternative reference to 

"scale(s)." During trial, the distinction between one or two scales was 

irrelevant to Mills' defense that he did not possess the heroin, scales and 

other drug-related items found in the hotel room. More importantly, and 

contrary to Mills' suggestion that the verdict may have not been 

unanimous, the verdict form did not reflect any ambiguity between the 
STATE v. MILLS

Decision of the Court

5

singular and plural, and indicated only the plural "scales."

2 Thus, even 

assuming error, Mills has not demonstrated fundamental error because he 

has failed to show that an error went to the foundation of his case, interfered 

with his defense, or denied the possibility of a fair trial. See State v. 

Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327, 336, ¶ 19, n.6 (2005) (noting that jury verdicts can 

moot any possibility of non-unanimity). 

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Mills' convictions and 

sentences.

 

2 Appellant's brief incorrectly stated that the verdict form reflected 

"Scale(s)." We have reviewed the signed verdict form and it stated the 

plural, "[t]o wit: Scales."