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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

DANIEL DAVITT, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0217 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2020-001161-001 

The Honorable Chuck Whitehead, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson 

By Diane Leigh Hunt 

Counsel for Appellee 

Law Office of Stephen M. Johnson, Phoenix 

By Stephen M. Johnson 

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 08-01-2024
STATE v. DAVITT 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in 

which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins 

joined. 

H O W E, Judge: 

¶1 Daniel Davitt appeals his manslaughter conviction and 

sentence. We affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 Davitt is serving a life and additional sentences for multiple 

felony counts at Lower Buckeye Jail in Phoenix. One morning in October 

2019, Davitt drafted a complaint alleging that one of the jail guards, Blaine,1

had watched him while he was using the restroom earlier that morning. 

Minutes later, Davitt handed the papers to a health technician, whom Blaine 

was escorting to perform medical tasks on another inmate. The technician 

claimed that he was not authorized to receive complaints from inmates. 

Blaine then asked for and took the papers from the technician. Davitt 

became agitated and slammed Blaine to the ground. Blaine died the next 

day. Davitt was indicted on one count of second-degree murder, a Class 1 

felony. 

¶3 Before trial, the State moved to preclude evidence of 

complaints that Davitt had made against Blaine before the October 

altercation. These complaints alleged that Blaine had inappropriately 

watched while Davitt was using the restroom and had improperly taken his 

possessions. Davitt objected that preclusion would prejudice him. The State 

then asked the court to admit evidence of Davitt’s complaints against Blaine 

but instruct the jury that the evidence was not to be used for any other 

purpose but to show Davitt’s possible motive and his state of mind at the 

time of the altercation. Davitt objected to the evidence being used to show 

motive, but the court granted the State’s motion. 

¶4 During the trial, Davitt testified in detail about the complaints 

he had made against Blaine but stated that he did not want to go into details 

1 We use a pseudonym to protect the victim’s privacy. 
STATE v. DAVITT 

Decision of the Court 

3 

about the complaints other inmates had made against Blaine because “they 

were for the most part petty complaints.” Davitt also testified that he acted 

recklessly in killing Blaine. The State later sought to admit seven 

photographs that showed Blaine’s head injury. Davitt objected to admitting 

four of the photographs that showed Blaine’s skull and brain injuries, 

alleging they were highly prejudicial and irrelevant because the injury was 

not disputed. The court admitted the four photographs, finding them 

relevant. Although “somewhat gruesome,” the court found that any 

prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh their probative value. It 

stated that the photographs “would lead the jury to possibly understand 

the extent of the injuries more fully with the testimony of the medical 

examiner.”

¶5 The jury found Davitt guilty of the lesser included offense of 

manslaughter. The court found that the aggravating factors—the serious 

physical injury to the victim and the effect of the offense on Blaine’s wife, 

family, and community—outweighed the mitigating factors—Davitt’s 

remorse for his actions and age. The court sentenced Davitt to a term of 33 

years’ imprisonment. Davitt timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction. 

A.R.S. §§ 12–120.21(A)(1), 13–4031, and –4033(A). 

DISCUSSION

¶6 Davitt argues that the trial court erred in admitting the four 

photographs that depicted Blaine’s head injury because the manner of 

death was not disputed and they were gruesome, which Davitt contends 

inflamed the jury. This court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of 

discretion, State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 519 ¶ 160 (2013), deferring to the 

trial court’s assessment of relevance and unfair prejudice, State v. Smith, 215 

Ariz. 221, 232 ¶ 48 (2007) (citations omitted). Gruesome photographs may 

be admitted into evidence if they have “probative value apart from merely 

illustrating the atrociousness of the crime.” State v. Poland, 144 Ariz. 388, 401 

(1985). “This is true notwithstanding the fact that neither the identity of the 

victim nor the manner of death are disputed.” Id.

¶7 The four photographs here were relevant and not unduly 

prejudicial. Because the photographs showed Blaine’s skull and brain 

injuries, they provided information about the manner of death or otherwise 

corroborated the State’s case. See State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 339 ¶¶ 70–71 

(2007) (holding that the trial court properly admitted photographs showing 

the victim’s hands and feet because they were relevant to show “manner of 

death or otherwise corroborate the State’s case”). The trial court analyzed 

each photograph and determined that any prejudicial effect did not 
STATE v. DAVITT 

Decision of the Court 

4 

substantially outweigh the probative value, finding that the photographs 

would aid the jury in understanding the extent of the injuries. Moreover, 

Davitt was found guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter, 

which further weakens Davitt’s argument that the photographs inflamed 

the jury. On this record, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting 

the photographs. 

¶8 Davitt also argues that the trial court erred in limiting him 

from testifying in detail about the complaints he and other inmates had 

made against Blaine. But the record does not show that the court limited 

Davitt from presenting evidence of complaints against Blaine. Instead, the 

record shows that the court admitted such evidence because Davitt testified 

at length about the complaints he had made against Blaine and chose not to 

testify about the complaints others had made against Blaine. The court also 

instructed the jury to use the evidence only to determine possible motive 

and Davitt’s state of mind at the time of the altercation. At trial, Davitt 

objected to the evidence being admitted to show motive. But he does not 

argue the same in his opening brief and has thus waived the argument. See 

State v. Snider, 233 Ariz. 243, 247 ¶ 11 (App. 2013). In any event, the jury, in 

line with Davitt’s testimony that he acted recklessly in killing Blaine, found 

him guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter. We discern no 

error. 

CONCLUSION 

¶9 We affirm.