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. S HAWN DE NE AN E DM I S T E N, A p p e llan t. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C R 2007- 0074

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
- 20060019 H o n o rab le F ran k D aw ley , Ju d g e P ro T em p o re

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 D avi d A
. Sul l i van
R ober tJ
. H i r s h, Pi m a C ount yPubl i c D efe nder B yF ra n k P . L e to 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
H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge. ¶1 A ft era j ur yt r i al , Shaw n E d m ist en w as convi ct ed of s ever al fel onyoffe ns es i ncl udi ng bur gl ar y , aggr avat ed as s aul t , ki dnappi ng, ar m ed r obbery , and dr i ve- bys hoot i ng. O n appea l , E dm i s t en cont ends t he t r i al cour t err ed bygi vi ng err oneous j ur yi ns t ruct i ons and M A R 23 2 009 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

t he p rosecut or enga ged i n m i scond uct duri ng cl osi ng argum ent. F or t he fo l l ow i ng reas on s,
we a f f i r m. F a cts ¶2 “ W e v ie w th e f a c ts in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to s u s ta in in g th e c o n v ic tio n s .” St at e v. R obl es , 213 A r i z. 268, ¶ 2, 141 P. 3d 7 4 8 , 7 5 0 (A p p . 2006)
. A r m ed w i t h var i ous
w eapons , E dm i s t en and thr ee othe rperpetr at or s i nvaded a hom e, w i t h t he i nt entt o s t eal drugs , by k ickin g in a doorand att acki ng t he r es i dent s i ns i de. T he perpetr at or s found no drugs buts t ol e tw o handguns and l efti n a car . W hen a s her i ff’ s deputyt r i ed t o pul l t hei rcar
over , E dm i s t en poi nt ed a handgun att he deputy . D ur i ng an ens ui ng carchas e, E dm i s t en and one of hi s codef

endant s s hotatt w o patr ol car s an d o n e pass i ng m ot or i s t
. T he i nnocent
m ot or i s tw as s t ruck bya bul l etand s uffe r ed s ever e i nj ur i es . T he ca rcont ai ni ng E dm is t en
a n d th e o th e rs e v e n tu a llyc ra sh e d in to a d itch , an d th e o c c u p a n ts f led in to th e d e se rt. ¶3 E dm i s t en appr oache d a hous e ca rry ing an A K
- 47 r i fl e. T he r es i dent s of t he hous e, a fa m i l yw i t h t w o chi l dr en, w er e si t t i ng on t he back por ch. E dm i s t en demanded ca r key s and then or der ed eve r y one i nt o t he hous e. H e t ol d t he fa m i l yt hatt he pol i ce w er e af t er h i m a n d h e d i d n o t wan t t o g e t c a u g h t
. Aft e r l e a rn i n g o n e o f t h e r e s i d e n t s h a d c a l l e d 911, E dm i s t en hi m s el f ca l l ed 911 and t ol d t he oper at orhe w as t he ow nerof t he hous e and

“ e v e ry th in g w a s f

in e , tha t th e p e rso n m o v e d o n .” H e th e n rip p e d th e tele p h o n e f ro m th e w a ll and r emoved t he batt er yfr om another , por t abl e t el ephone. E dm i s t en al s o t ook contr ol of a
c e llu lar tele p h o n e , w h ich h e u se d to c a ll so m e o n e to a sk f o r a rid e . H e th e n w a tch e d th e six o’ cl ock t el evi s i on new s t o s ee c over age o f t he eve nt s , and he a s ked the r es i dent s about di ffe r ent t r ans por t at i on pos s i bi l i t i es i ncl udi ng w hether he coul d r i de a hor s e theyow ned and3

w hethert heyow ned an a l l

- t er r ai n vehi cl e. A ft erone of the resident s as ked hi m t o putt he
r i fl e dow n s o as not t o m ake every one ner vous , E dm i s t en r emoved the cl i p, hi d t he w eapon behi nd a couc h, and put t he cl i p under a cus hi on. H e al s o as ked forand r ece i ved a c hange of clot hes. ¶4 E dm i s t en then di s cover ed ther e w as a por t abl e t el ephone on the ba c k p o r ch and
or der ed one of

t he r es i dent s t o r etr i eve i t
. T he res i dents aw s her i ff’ s deput i es out s i de and i nfor m ed t hem t hatE dm i s t en w as i n t he hous e. T he deput i es ent er ed and a r r es t ed Edm i s t en. A ft erhe w as i n cu stod y , E dm i s t en t ol d a s er geantt hathe had t aken LSD and thatt he
e m e rg e n c ylig h ts o n th e se rg e a n t’s c a r w e re “ w ig g in g h im o u t.” T h e d e p u tyw h o h a d in iti a lly t r i ed t o s t op t he perpetr at or s ’ cardr ove t o w her e Edm i s t en w as b eing hel d and i dent i fi ed Ed mi s t e n a s t h e p e r s o n wh o h a d a i me d a g u n a th i m. ¶5 A t trial, E d m iste n ’s p rim a ryd e f e n se w a s th a t h e h a d b e e n in v o lu n tar ily in to x ica ted a t th e tim e o f th e c rim e s. E d m iste n ’s f o rm e r girlf

rie n d , Y o lan d a V ., tes tifie d th a t,
ear l ieron t he dayof t he off ens es , s he had s ecr et l ys l i pped tw o E cs t as ypi l l s i nt o hi s dr i nk. Y o lan d a tes tifie d th a t E c sta sym a d e E d m iste n d iso rie n ted , u n c o m f o rta b le b e c a u s e it pr event ed hi m from ur i nat i ng, and i ncapa bl e of dr i vi ng a ca r . T he s t at e cha l l enged Y ol anda’ s cr edi bi l i t y by el i ci t i ng t es t i m ony t hat s he had notcome for w ar d w i t h t hi s evi dence unt i l appr oxi m at el yfi ve mont hs aft ert he dat e of the off ens es and bypoi nt i ng out i ncons i s t enci es i n her s t or y w i t h r es pect t o t he pr eci s e dat e s he had a l l egedl ygi ven Edm i s t en t he drug. T he s t at e al s o s ugges t ed Y ol anda’ s m ot i ve fortest ify ing w as t hats he w ant ed E d m ist en to p aych il d su p p o rtfo r t h e c h il d they h ad tog ethe r.4 Jur y I ns t r uc t i ons ¶6 E dm i s t en fi r s tar gues t he tr i al cour t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons on i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on
w er e “i ncompl et e, confus i ng, and mi s l ed the j ur yas t o t he St at e’ s and def endant ’ s r es pect i ve bur dens of pr oof. ” D ivis i on O ne of thi s cour thas des cr i bed the i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on d e f e n s e a s p e rm ittin g a d e f e n d a n t “t o n e g a te th e re q u is ite s ta te o f m in d f o r a c ri m in a l a c t.” St at e v. McKeon , 2 0 1 A riz . 5 7 1 , ¶ 2 0 , n .2 , 3 8 P .3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 0 & n .2 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); c f. A
. R. S. § 1 3 -50 3 (pro h ibit ing v olun tar y in to x ica tio n a s d e f

e n se “ f o r a n yc rim in a l ac t o r re q u isite s tate of m i nd”). A s a g en er al m at t er , t he bur den i n a cr i m i nal t r i al i s on t he s t at e t o pr ove the d e f e n d a n t’ s g u ilt b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. S e e S ta te v . P o rtillo , 182 A r i z. 592, 594, 898 P
. 2 d 9 7 0 , 9 7 2 (1 9 9 5 ). T h is b u rd e n in c lu d e s a n yre q u ir e d m e n ta l s ta te
. S e e S t a t e v. A m a y a -R u iz , 166 A r i z. 152, 173 , 8 0 0 P
. 2 d 1260, 1281 ( 1990) ( s t at e has bur den t o pr ove
everyel ement of off

ens e i ncl udi ng m ent al s t at e)
. A nd t he s t atut es do notexpr es s l ypr ovi de foranybur den- s hi ft i ng w hen a defe ndant offe r s evi dence of i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on i n an
a tte m p t to n e g a te th e c u lp a b le m e n ta l s ta te f o r t h e o f f e n s e s c h a rg e d
. See M

cKeon , 201 A r i z. 571, n. 2, 38 P. 3d at1240 n. 2 ( not i ng l egi s l atur e “ne i t herabol i s hed the St at e’ s bur den of pr ovi ng t hata def

endantpos s es s ed t he re qui s i t e st at e of m i nd att he t i m e of the off ens e, nor ab o li sh ed the d ef

en d an t’ s o p p o rtu n ityto introd u ce ev iden ce to co u n te r th e S tat e’s
ev iden ce ”). ¶7 T he s t at e, how ever , i m pl i edl yar gues i nvol unt ary i nt oxi cat i on i s an af fi r m at i ve defe ns e and r el i es on St at e v. F iguer oa , 151 A r i z. 213, 215, 216, 726 P. 2d 62 9 , 6 3 1 , 6 32 ( A pp. 198 6 ) , f

o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e b u r d e n s o f p r o o f a n d p e r s u a s i o n a r e o n t he defe ndant
. B uts i nce F iguer oa w as deci ded, t he l egi s l atur e has abol i s hed al l comm on l awW e ac know l edge J udge H al l ’ s s peci al concurr ence i n McKeon , i n w hi ch he a r gued 1 t hatt he def

ens e of i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on does not exi s t i n A r i zona unl es s i t i s pl ed as t he a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e o f te m p o ra ry in s a n ity u n d e r A .R .S . § 1 3 -5 0 2
. McKeon , 201 A r i z. 571, ¶ ¶ 3 9 , 4 4 , 3 8 P .3 d a t 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 4 5 . If in v o lu n tar yin to x ic a tio n w e re ra ise d a s a n in sa n ity defe ns e, the b u rde n w oul d be on the def endantt o pr ove hi s i ns ani t yr es ul t i ng fr om in v o lu n ta ry in to x ic a tio n b yc le a r a n d c o n v in c in g ev iden ce . See § 13- 502( c)
. N um er ous ot her j ur i s di ct i ons al l ow an i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on defe n se o n lyas a form of i ns ani t ydefe ns e. See Paul H
. R obi ns on, 2 C r i m i nalLaw D ef ens es § 1 7 6 (a ) (2 0 0 8 ); se e a lso C o m m o n w e a lth v . Sm ith , 8 3 1 A .2 d 6 3 6 , ¶ 9 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 20 0 3 ); St at e v. G ar dner , 601 N
. W
. 2d 670, 673- 74 (W is. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); St at e v. V oor hees , 5 9 6 N .W .2 d 2 4 1 , 2 5 0 (M in n . 1 9 9 9 ); P eopl e v. W i lki ns , 459 N
. W
. 2d 57, 59- 60 ( M i ch. C t
. A pp. 1990) ( col l ect i ng cas es )
. I n t hi s cas e, E dm i s t en di d notpur s ue an i ns ani t ydefe ns e. B utbeca us e nei t herpar t yhas ar gued on appe al th a t McKeon w as i ncor r ect l ydeci ded, w e do notdeci de t odayw hetherw e agr ee w i t h t he McKeon m aj or i t yorconcurr ence . 5 a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e s a n d p ro v id e d th a t a n y a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e c a n o n ly e x is t b ys ta tu te
. See A .R .S
. § 1 3 -1 0 3 (A ); 1 9 9 7 A riz
. S e ss . L a w s, c h
. 1 3 6 , § 3
. T o d a y , n o A riz o n a s ta tu te expl i ci t l ym akes i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i o n an aff i r m at i ve def

ens e. A nd, pur s uantt o § 13- 103( B ) , t he t er m “‘ aff

i r m at i ve def

ens e’
. . . does noti ncl ude .
. . anydefe ns e thatei t her d en ies an elem en t of

the o ff en se c h arg ed o r de n ies resp o n sibil ity . ” T h u s, inv o lun tary intox icat i on i s notan af fi r m at i ve def

ens e, and F iguer oa i s n o l o n g e rg o o d a u t h o r i t yf or det er m i ni ng t he appl i cabl e bur den of pr oof and pe r s uas i on. ¶8 W e conc l ude, cons i s t entw i t h McKeon , t hat i nv olunt aryi ntoxi cat i on i s a defe ns e t hat “deni es an el ement of t he off ens e cha r ged ordeni es r es pons i bi l i t y ” as pr ovi ded in § 1 3 -1 0 3 (B ). See M

cKeon , 201 A r i z. 571, ¶ 20, n. 2, 38 P. 3d at1240, 1240 n. 2. T her efor e,
w hen the def

endant offe r s evi dence of i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on, t he bur den r emai ns on t he
s t at e t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt t hat t he defe ndant i s gui l t yof t he off ens es char ged,

w hich necessari l y i ncludes proving the r equ i si t e m ental st at e bey on d a reas on able d o u b t. 16

S e e P o rtillo , 1 8 2 A riz . at 5 9 4 , 8 9 8 P .2 d a t 9 7 2 ; A m a y a -R u iz , 166 A r i z. at 173, 800 P. 2d at 1281. ¶9 A tE dm i s t en’ s r eques t , t he tr i al cour tpr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng ins t ruct i on on i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on:

I nt oxi cat i on r es ul t i ng fr om t he i nvol un t aryus e of a l cohol o r d ru g s m a yb e c o n sid e re d b yy o u w ith re sp e c t to th e c u lp a b le m ent al s t at e r equi r ed t o pr ove an of fens e. T he r equi s i t e ment al s t at es ar e “i nt ent i onal l y ” or“w i t h i nt entt o[, ”] “kno w i ngl y [, ”] “r eckl es s l y ” and “ w i t h pr emedi t at i on[. ”] If y o u f in d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t b e c a m e in to x ica ted so lely a s a re su lt o f

d ru g s o r a lco h o l ad m in iste re d to h im a g a in st h is w i l l oragai ns thi s know l edge, y ou s houl d t hen cons i derw hether t he degr ee of i nt oxi cat i on pr ecl uded the def endantfr om act i ng w i t h a part i cul arm ent al s t at e ors t at es r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h an offe ns e. E dm i st en argu ed b el ow t hat i n v o lu n tar yi ntoxi cat i on w as si m i l ar t o a just i fi cat i on defe nse
a n d th a t th e “

ju ro rs s h o u ld [ a lso ] b e in stru c ted th a t th e b u rd e n is o n th e S tate to a f f irm a tiv e ly di s pr ove the i nt oxi cat i on [def ens e]
. ” The cour tr ej ect ed Edm i s t en’s a n al y s i s and hi s or al
r eques tfort hi s s epar at e i ns t ruct i on buti ns t ruct ed the j ur yon t he s t at e’ s bur den t o pr ove defe ndant ’ s gui l tbey ond a r eas on ab le doubt us i ng t he l anguage m andat ed i n P o rtillo , 182 A r i z. at596, 898 P. 2d at974. T he courtal s o i ns t ruct ed thateac h char ged off ens e r equi r ed pr oof of pa r t i cul arel ement s i ncl udi ng a s peci fi c ment al s t at e. ¶10 O n ap p ea l, E d m ist en arg u es the tr ial co u rterred in f ail ing to instruc t th e jury on t he l evel of proof nece s s ar y t o s how i nvol unt ary i nt oxi cat i on, fai l i ng t o i ns t ructt hatt he
s t at e had t he burde n t o pr ove ever y el ement of t he off ens es bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , and fai l i ng t o i ns t ruct on t he oper at i ve eff ect of a fi ndi ng of i nvol unt ary i nt o x icati o n byIn h is r ep lyb ri ef , E d m ist en rep ea ted h is co n tention b elow that in v o lu n tary 2 i nt ox icati o n is l i ke a j us t i fi cat i on defe ns e and f ort he fi r s tt i m e ar gued that , undera r ece nt amendm entt o A
. R
. S. § 13- 205( A ) , t he l egi s l atur e i m pos ed on t he s t at e t he bur den t o pr ove th e d e f e n d a n t h a d n o t ac ted w ith ju stif ica tio n . A n a rg u m e n t f

irst ra ise d o n a p p e a l in th e re p ly b ri e f is w a iv e d , a n d w e w ill n o t a d d re s s it. Stat e v. R ug gier o , 211 A r i z. 262, n. 2, 120 P. 3d 6 9 0 , 6 9 5 n . 2 (A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). 7 expl ai ni ng t hat , i f t he j ur or s “had a re as onabl e doubt about t he def endant ’ s m ent al s t at e bas ed on hi s i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on, t heycoul d acqui torfi nd hi m gui l t yof a l es s er offe ns e. ” B ut 2 E dm i s t en di d notr ai s e thes e i s s ues bel ow , and hi s obj ect i on t o t he court ’ s r efus al t o i ns t ruct t hatt he s t at e must aff

i r m at i vel y di s pr ove i nt oxi cat i on di d not pr es er ve t hes e new cl ai m s of
e r r o r. See A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. 21. 3( c) ( g r o u n d s o f o b j e c t i o n t o i n s t ru c t i o n mus t b e s t at ed d ist inctly ); s e e al

s o S t at e v . Schurz , 1 7 6 A r i z. 46, 54, 859 P. 2d 156, 164 ( 1993) ( gener al
o b jecti o n to instruc ti o n d o es n o t prese rve sp ec ifi c). ¶11 W hen a defe ndant fai l s t o r ai s e an obj ect i on bel ow , w e r evi ew forfundament al
e rr o r. St at e v. Hender

s on , 2 1 0 A riz . 5 6 1 , ¶ 1 9 , 1 1 5 P .3 d 6 0 1 , 6 0 7 (2 0 0 5 ); s ee al s o Ar i z . R. C r i m . P. 21. 3( c)
. Fundam ent al er r ori nvol ves “‘ err orgoi ng t o t he founda t ion o f the ca s e,
err ort hatt akes fr om t he def endanta r i ghtes s ent i al t o hi s defe ns e, and err orof s uch
m agni tude thatt he def

endantcoul d not pos s i bl y have r ece i ved a fai rt r i al
. ’ ” Hender s on , 210 A ri z . 5 6 1 , ¶ 1 9 , 1 1 5 P .3 d a t 6 0 7 , quot i ng St at e v. H unt er , 142 A r i z. 88, 90, 688 P. 2d 980, 982 (1 9 8 4 ). W ith re g a rd to ju ryin stru c tio n s, f u n d a m e n tal e rro r oc c u rs “ w h e n th e trial j u d g e f a ils t o i ns t ructupon m at t er s vi t al t o a pr opercons i der at i on of t he evi dence
. ” St at e v. Laught er , 128 A r i z. 264, 267, 625 P. 2d 327, 330 ( A pp. 1980)
. T o pr evai l on a cl ai m of funda m ent al
err or , t he appe l l ant m u st fi r s ts how err orand then s how t hatt he err ori s fundament al andA l t hough an i ns t ruct i on us i ng t he “e veryel ement ” l anguage w as notr equi r ed, addi ng 3 such langu age m ayi nd eed b e helpful t o jur i es. 8 p re ju d ic ia l. Hender

s on , 21 0 A ri z. 56 1, ¶¶ 2 0, 23 , 11 5 P
. 3d at60 7, 60 8. F or several reas on s,
w e fi nd no fundament al , pr ej udi ci al err orher e. ¶12 Fi r s t , t he tr i al cour t di d not fai l t o i ns t ruct on a l evel of proof
. A s w e al r eady obs er ved, t he courtpr oper l yi ns t ruct ed the j ur y t hat t he st at e had t he burde n of pr ovi ng t he d e f e n d a n t’ s g u ilt b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. S e e P o rtillo , 182 A r i z. at 594, 898 P. 2d at972. B eca us e i nvol unt ar yi nt oxi cat i on i s nota def ens e t hat t r i gger s anyt ype of bur den- s hi ft i ng, th e re w a s n o o th e r le v e l o f p ro o f o n w h ich to in stru c t. ¶13 S ec o n d , alt h o u g h o u r sup rem e c ourthas appr oved i n stru cti o n s u sing the “ ev ery
e le m e n t” la n g u a g e th a t E d m is te n c la im s o n a p p e a l w a s e rr o n e o u s ly o m itte d , s ee Stat e v. O re n d a in , 188 A r i z. 54, 55, 56, 932 P. 2d 1325, 1326, 1 3 2 7 (19 9 7 ) , E dm i s t en has ci t ed no author i t yt hat w oul d r equi r e t he t r i al cour tt o us e thatl anguage . A s w e s t at ed above , t he t r i al 3

cour t pr oper l y i ns t ruct ed t he j ur yon t he s t at e’ s bur den, us i ng t he l anguage m andat ed byour
s upr eme cour ti n P o rtillo , 182 A r i z. at596, 898 P. 2d at974. ¶14 T h ird , th e trial c o u rt d id n o t f a il to in stru c t th e ju ryo n th e “ o p e ra tiv e e f f e c t” of a f i ndi ng of i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on. T he cour t expl ai ned t hat t he j ur y coul d cons i dert he
e v id e n c e o f

in v o lu n tar yin to x ica tio n “ w ith re sp e c t to th e c u lp a b le m e n tal s tate re q u ire d to pr ove an of

fens e. ” A nd, agai n, t he courtt ol d t he j ur yt hat , i f i thad a r eas onabl e doubtas defi ned i n P o rtillo , 1 8 2 A r i z . a t5 9 6 , 8 9 8 P
. 2 d a t9 7 4 , i ts h o u l d f i n d E d m i s t e n n o tg u i l t y. T hus , t he courtdi d i ns t ructt he j ur yon w hatt o do i f i t d eterm ine d E dm i s t en had be en in v o lu n ta ri ly in to x ic a te d
.9

¶15 I n addi t i on, dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , E dm i s t en expl ai ned anyambi gui t yi n t he in s tr u c tio n s . See St at e v. Johns on , 205 A r i z. 4 13, ¶ 11, 72 P. 3d 343, 347 ( A pp. 2003) ( appel l at e courtw i l l cons i derj ur yi ns t ruct i ons “i n cont extand i n conj unct i on w i t h t he cl os i ng argum ents of co un sel ” ); s ee al s o St at e v. Mar t i nez , 175 A r i z. 114, 118, 854 P. 2d 147, 151 (A p p . 1 9 9 3 ). E dm i st en tol d the j uryt hat the st at e had t o “p rove each and everyel em en t, in c lu d in g th e m e n tal sta te.” H e re m in d e d th e ju ry th a t th e sta te h a d th e b u rd e n to p ro v e h im gui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. A nd he t ol d t he j ur or s t hati f t heyconcl uded he ha d been undert he i nfl uence of a drug t o t he poi nt w her e he coul d not for m t he r equi s i t e ment al s t at e, t h e n t h e y m u s tf

i n d h i m n o tg u i l t y. ¶16 T he s t at e, dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , al s o rem inde d t he j ur yt hati thad t he bur den t o pr ove t he def endant ’ s gui lt b ey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. A nd dur i ng r ebut t al
a rg u m e n t, th e sta te a ss e rte d : “[ E ]v e n if M r. E d m iste n h a d tak e n th o se d ru g s w ith o u t h is know l edge, al l t hatal l ow s y ou t o do i s say , gee, gi ven thatfac t , i s t her e evi dence t hathe i nt ended t o comm i tt hese cri m es i ndepende ntof t hat ?” T he s t at e then s um m ar i zed a l l t he evidence it had present ed t o s ho w E dm i st en w as “able t o form t he i ntent t o m ake d eci si on s”
a n d c o n c lu d e d th e ju rysh o u ld f in d th is w a s o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f g u ilt
. ¶17 T hus , bot h par t i es cl ar i fi ed the i ns t ruct i ons conce r ni ng w ho had the bur den of pr oof, and both emphasi zed the i s s ue of w hethert he s t at e had meti t s bur den t o pr ove E dm i s t en had the r equi s i t e ment al s t at e i n l i ghtof t he evi dence of i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on. W e c an saf

elyco n clud e tha t th ese instruc tio n s , to g ethe r w ith the a rgu m en ts, left t h e jury “w i t h t h e u n q u a l i f

i e d i mpr e s s i o n t h a t e a c h e l e me n t o f t h e c r i me , ” i n c l u d i n g me n t a l s t at e, “mustbe pr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” O re n da in , 188 A r i z. at 56, 932 P. 2d at1327.10

T h ere fo r e, an yerro r i n the in stru cti o n s— inclu d ing the o m issi o n o f a n instruction that the ju ry coul d acqui ti f t heyhad a r eas onabl e doubt about t he defenda nt ’ s m ent al s t at e i n l i ghtof t he
e v id e n c e o f

in v o lu n ta ry in to x ic a tio n
— d id n o t c o n s titu te f u n d a m e n ta l e rr o r. C

f

. St at e v. Tucker , 2 1 5 A ri z . 2 9 8 , ¶ ¶ 6 5 , 6 9 , 1 6 0 P .3 d 1 7 7 , 1 9 5 -9 6 , c e r t
. deni ed ,

_ _ _ U
. S. ___, 128 S. C t
. 296 ( 2007) ( err or i n i ns t ruct i ng j ur yon bur den of pr oof r egar di ng m i t i gat i on evi dence
n o t f u n d a m e n tal); St at e v. Moody , 208 A r i z. 424, ¶¶ 188, 193, 94 P. 3d 1119, 1161- 62 ( 2004) (m isst atem en t of

law in instruc ti o n o n v o lun taryintox icati o n n o t fu n d am en tal erro r). ¶18 M or eover , t he evi dence t hat E dm i s t en w as actual l yi nvol unt ar i l yi nt oxi cat ed

w as w eake ned cons i der abl ybyt he cha l l enges t o Y ol anda’ s cr edi bi l i t yand the evi dence of E d m ist en ’s be h av ior d u ri n g the in cide n ts. A re v ie w o f th at be h av ior d o es n o t sup p o rt E dm i s t en’ s cont ent i on t hathe “w as s uffi ci ent l y depr i ved of hi s r eas on t hat he di d noti nt end t he natur al r es ul ts of

hi s act i ons . ” McKeon , 201 A r i z. 571, ¶ 24, 38 P. 3d at1241. O n t he contr ary , t he evi dence s how s he made num er ous del i ber at e decision s, w as aw ar e he w as engagi ng i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y , and w as cal cul at i ng hi s opt i ons for es cape . A nd t he fa ctt hat E d m iste n h a d a d m itt e d a t th e tim e o f h is a rre st to h a v in g tak e n L S D f u rth e r c o m p ro m ise d h is
e v id e n c e o f

in v o lu n ta ry in to x ic a tio n . See § 1 3 -50 3 (t em p o raryintox icati o n fro m v o lun tary ing esti o n o f il lega l sub stan ce “n o t a d ef en se fo r an y crim inal ac t o r req u isi te stat e o f m ind ”);

c f. B u rc h fieldv . S ta te , 4 6 4 S
. E
. 2 d 2 7 , 2 8 (G a . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) (t esti m o n yd ef en d an t’ s g ir lfri en d sli p p ed d rug into d ef en d an t’ s co ff

ee n o t “co n clus ive e v iden ce ” o f in v o lun tary intox icati o n w h ere d ef

en d an t con su m e d s u b stan ti al am o u n t of alco h o l pri o r t o o ff

en se). T h u s, e v e n w e re w e to c o n c lu d e f u n d a m e n tal e rro r d id re su lt fro m th e in stru c tio n s, th e re is11

no r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt he j ur yw oul d have r eac hed a di ffe r entr es ul t , and Edm i s t en has
n o t s h o w n p re

ju d ic e . See H

ender s on , 210 A r i z. 561, ¶¶ 26, 27, 115 P. 3d at608, 609. ¶19 A tor al argum ent , E dm i s t en cha l l enged f ort he fi r s tt i m e the por t i on of t he i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on i ns t ruct i on t hat r ead, “y ou s houl d t hen consi der w hethert he degr ee of i nt oxi cat i on pr ecl uded t he def endantfr om act i ng w i t h a pa r t i cul arm ent al s t at e. ” Edm i s t en
a rg u e d th is lan g u a g e , s p e c if ica lly th e u se o f

th e w o rd “ p re c lu d e d ,” im p ro p e rlysu g g e ste d to t he j ur yt hat E dm i s t en had s om e burde n of pr oof t o s how he di d nothave the r equi s i t e ment al
s t at e. B ut E d m ist en hi m s el f r eques t ed thi s i ns t ruct i on bel ow . T her efor e, t o t he ext entt he l anguage t o w hi ch he now obj ect s w as an i ncorr ect s t at ement of l aw , he i nvi t ed t he err or , and

w e w ill n o t c o n s id e r i t o n a p p e a l. See Stat e v. Logan , 200 A r i z. 564, ¶ 9, 30 P. 3d 631, 632- 3 3 (2 0 0 1 ). M o re o v e r, a rg u m e n ts rais e d f o r th e f irst t im e a t o ra l a rg u m e n t a re g e n e ra lly

w a iv e d
. St at e v. Mur daugh , 2 0 9 A ri z. 19 , ¶ 2 9 , 9 7 P
. 3 d 8 4 4 , 8 5 1 (20 0 4 ). ¶20 A lso ato ral argu m en t, E d m ist en ex p an d ed o n h is co n tention that the tri al co u rt erred in n o t giving a se p ara te in stru cti o n o n rea so n ab le d o u b t as to m en tal stat e w ith reg ard to in v o lu n tar yin to x ica tio n . H e c o n ten d e d f o r th e f irst tim e th a t o u r su p re m e c o u rt’s a n a ly sis i n St at e v. R odr iguez , 1 9 2 A ri z. 58 , 9 6 1 P
. 2 d 1 0 0 6 (19 9 8 ), co n tr o ls a n d it req u ir ed the c o u rt t o gi ve s uch an i ns t ruct i on. I n R odr iguez , the c o u rt h eld th at, w h en a d ef en d an t of

fe rs evi dence i n s uppor tof an a l i bi defe ns e, t he tr i al cour ts houl d i ns t ructt he j u ry o n ali b i in a
m anner t hat w i l l pr eventt he j ur yfr om “i ncorr ect l yas s um [i ng] t hatt he def endantbear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng hi s al i bi
. ” I d. ¶ 25. T he pr offe r ed i ns t ruct i on i n R odr iguezs t at ed: T he def endanthas pr oduced evi dence of bei ng abs entat t he t i m e a n d p lace t he al l eged c r i m e w as comm i t t ed. I f y ou have a r eas onable d oubtw hethert he def endantw as pr es entat12 t he ti m e and place the all eged cri m e w as co m m i t t ed, y ou m ust f i n d t h e d e f

e n d a n tn o tg u i l t y. Id

. ¶ 30. E dm i s t en now ar gues a s i m i l ari ns t ruct i on r egar di ng i nvol unt ary i nt oxi cat i on w as
nece s s aryi n h is tri al t o pr eventt he r i s k t hatt he j ur yw oul d i ncorr ect l yconcl ude Edm i s t en h a d s o m e b u rd e n o f

p ro o f w ith re s p e c t to h is in v o lu n ta ry in to x ic a tio n d e f e n s e . ¶21 W e re co g n ize a co n ce p tual sim il ar ityb etw ee n the a li b i and inv o lun tary in to x ica tio n th e o rie s in th a t ea c h g e n e ra llyo rig in a tes f ro m th e d e f

e n se . A g a in a rg u m e n ts
ra is e d f o r t h e f ir s t tim e a t o ra l a rg u m e n t a re g e n e ra lly w a iv e d
. Mur daugh , 209 A r i z. 19, ¶ 29, 97 P. 3d at 851. A nd, i n R odr iguez , t he defe ndanthad r eques t ed the al i bi i ns t ruct i on att r i al and had ther efor e pr es er ved t he i s s ue forappea l
. 192 A r i z. 58, ¶ 15, 961 P. 2d at1009. H er e, E dm i s t en di d notr eques tt he i ns t ruct i on and ther efor e, as s t at ed above, w e r evi ew onl yfor f u n d a m e n ta l e rr o r a n d p re ju d ic e . See H

ender s on , 210 A r i z. 561, ¶¶ 19- 20, 115 P. 3d at607. A s s um i ng w i t houtdeci di ng t hatE dm i s t en w oul d have be en ent i t l ed t o an i ns t ruct i on compar abl e t o t hati n R odr iguez
— had he r eques t ed i t

— as w e have a l r eadyconcl uded above , a n ye rro r in o m itt in g th a t in stru c tio n in th is c a se w a s n e ith e r f u n d a m e n tal n o r p re

ju d icia l. C f. S ta te v . V

a len zu e la , 1 9 4 A riz . 4 0 4 , ¶¶ 1 4 -1 6 , 9 8 4 P .2 d 1 2 , 1 5 -1 6 (1 9 9 9 ) (f a ilu re to i ns t ructon r eckl es s m ans l aught er as l es s er - i ncl uded offe ns e deni ed defe ndantr i ghtes s ent i al to d ef en se a n d w en t t o fo u n d ati o n o f th eo ryo f d ef en se). P ros ecut ori al M i s conduct ¶22 E dm i s t en al s o cont ends t he pr os ecut or engage d i n m i s conduct dur i ng cl os i ng
a rg u m e n t. B e c a u se h e d id n o t o b jec t to th e a lleg e d in sta n c e s o f m isc o n d u c t, w e re v iew h is13

a lle g a tio n s f

o r f u n d a m e n ta l e rr o r. See Stat e v. Hender s on , 210 A r i z. 561, ¶ 19, 115 P. 3d 601, 6 0 7 (20 0 5 ). ¶23 T o s how fundament al err or , t he def endant m us t fi r s t pr ove err or
— t hati s , her e, th a t m is c o n d u c t a c tu a lly o c c u rr e d
. Id . ¶ 2 3 ; St at e v. H ar r od , 218 A r i z. 268, ¶ 35, 183 P. 3d 5 1 9 , 5 2 9 (20 0 8 ). A fter es tablishing erro r,

“[t ] o pr evai l on a cl ai m of pros ecut or i al m i s conduct , a def endant m us tdemonst r at e t hat t he pr os ecut or ’ s m i s conducts o i nfec t ed t he t r i al w i t h unfai r nes s as t o m ake the re s ul t i ng convi ct i on a deni al of due pr oces s . R ev ersa l on t he bas i s of pr os ecut or i al m i s conductr equi r es that t he conduc tbe s o pr onounced a nd per s i s t entt hati tper m eat es t he ent i r e atm os pher e of the tr i al
. ” H ar r od , 2 1 8 A ri z . 2 6 8 , ¶ 3 5 , 1 8 3 P .3 d a t 5 2 9 , quot i ng St at e v. H ughes , 193 A r i z. 72, ¶ 26, 9 6 9 P .2 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 9 1 (1 9 9 8 ). P ro se c u to rs h a v e “ w id e latitu d e in th e ir c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts to t he j ur y . ” St at e v. C om er , 1 6 5 A riz
. 4 1 3 , 4 2 6 , 7 9 9 P .2 d 3 3 3 , 3 4 6 (1 9 9 0 ). W h e n o n e p a rty
ra is e s a n a rg u m e n t th a t is im p ro p e r o r i rr e le v a n t, “ th e o th e r p a rt ym a yh a v e a ri g h t to
. . . r es pond[] w i t h comm ent s . . . on t he s ame subj ect
. ” P oo lv. Su peri or C ou rt , 139 A r i z. 98, 1 0 3 , 6 7 7 P
. 2 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 6 (19 8 4 ). W e w il l no t r ev erse a co n v ict ion b ec au se o f a p rose cu tor’s i m pr oper comm ent s dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent unl es s t her e i s a “‘ r eas onabl e l i kel i hood’ t hat the ‘ m i s conductcoul d have a ffe ct ed the j ur y ’ s ver di ct
. ’ ” S ta te v . N e w e ll , 2 1 2 A r i z. 389, ¶ 6 7 , 1 3 2 P .3 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 7 (2 0 0 6 ), quot i ng St at e v. A tw ood , 171 A r i z. 576, 606, 832 P. 2d 593, 6 2 3 (19 9 2 ). ¶24 E dm i s t en fi r s tar gues the pr os ecut o r m ad e c o m m en ts th at i m p rop er l y“appe al ed t o t he fe arof t he j ur y , unfai r l y i nfl amed t hei rpas s i on, and unfa i r l yappea l ed t o t hei rpr ej udi ce and s y m pat hy
. ” D ur i ng E dm i s t en’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent , defe ns e couns el di s cus s ed the14

d if f e re n c e s in E d m iste n ’s b e h a v io r w h ile c o m m itt in g th e v a rio u s o f f e n se s c h a rg e d a n d in h is demeanori n t he court r oom . D ur i ng t he s t at e’ s r ebut t al ar gum ent , t he pr os ecut ors ai d:

N o w , I’m n o t su re w h a t co u n se l is a sk in g y o u to d o , b u t, in t erm s o f w h en h e t alks to y o u ab o u t y o u h a v e s e e n M r. E d m i st en si t t i ng here t his l astw eek an d y ou no t i ced h is de me a n o r a n d , g e e , d o e s t h a t l o o k l i k e t h e d e me a n o r of s om ebodyw ho w oul d do al l of t hes e vi ol ent cr i m es , w el l , l adi es a n d g e n t l e me n , we c e r t a i n l y e x p e c td e f e n d a n t s , wh e n t h e yc o me i nt o t hi s cour t r oom , t o s i t her e and be s om ew hatpol i t e and not s t ar ts hoot i n g p eo p le. I f t hatw as t he ca s e, w e w oul d have a pr obl em. W e w oul d expec tt hi s defe ndant t o s i t her e befor e the j uryand actpo l i t e and actj ustl i ke h e has been t he l astfew day s. H i s demeanori n cour t has not hi ng t o do w i t h w hether ornothe comm i t t ed thes e cr i m es on D ece m ber22nd of 2005. ¶25 T he pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s abou t Edm i s t en’ s i n- cour tdemeanorr es ponded di r ectl y to a p oi ntdefe ns e couns el had r ai s ed and f el l w el l w i t hi n t he l at i tude af for ded
a tto rn e y s d u ri n g c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. See Com er , 1 6 5 A riz
. a t 4 2 6 , 7 9 9 P .2 d a t 3 4 6 . E v e n if t he pr os ecut or ’ s comm entcoul d be cons i der ed i m pr op er or i r r el evant , E dm i s t en’ s couns el
o p e n e d th e d o o r to s u c h a rg u m e n t, a n d th e p ro s e c u to r w a s e n title d to re s p o n d
. See Pool , 139 A r i z. at103, 677 P. 2d at266. ¶26 E dm i s t en nextar gues t he pr os ec u torengage d i n m i s conductbyaddr es s i ng E dm i s t en’ s fai l ur e t o cal l a ce r t ai n w i t nes s t o t es t i fyand thus co n fu sed t he j ur yr egar di ng
w ho had t he bur den of pr oo f. “It i s w el l s et t l ed thata ‘ pr os ecut orm aypr oper l ycomm ent upon t he def

endant ’ s fai l ur e t o pr es ent excul pat or y evi dence , s o l ong as t he comm enti s not p h rase d t o cal l at t ent i on t o t he def endant ’ s ow n fai l ur e t o t es t i fy
. ’ ” Stat e v. Herrer a , 2 03 A ri z . 1 3 1 , ¶ 1 9 , 5 1 P .3 d 3 5 3 , 3 5 9 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ), quot i ng St at e v. Ful l er , 143 A r i z. 571, 575, 6 9 4 P .2 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 9 (1 9 8 5 ). “ S u c h c o m m e n t is p e rm itt e d b yth e w e ll rec o g n ize d p rin c ip leE dm i st en cit es St at e v. C or ona , 188 A r i z. 85, 89- 90, 932 P. 2d 1356, 1360- 61 ( A pp. 4 1997) , fort he pr opos i t i on t hatt he s t at e ca nnotcomm ent on t he defenda nt ’ s fai l ur e t o cal l an e x p e rt w itn e ss w h e n n o e v id e n c e h a s b e e n p re se n ted th a t th e d e f e n d a n t co n su lted a n e x p e rt. I n di s cus s i ng a cas e addr es s i ng a s i m i l ari s s ue, t he courti n C or ona r eas oned “the r es t r i ct i on on s u c h c o mme n t was p r o p e r . . . ‘ b e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t c a l l t h e s u b j e c t e x p e r t s , t he juryk n ew n o thing ab o u t th em an d there w as n o n ee d to ex p lai n w h ythey d id n o t t esti fy
. ’” I d. , qu oti ng G o rdon v. L igu ori , 182 A r i z. 232, 236, 895 P. 2d 523, 527 ( A pp. 1995)
. B ut h e re , the ju ryh e a rd e v id e n c e th a t an o th e r d e p u tyw a s p re se n t w h e n th e te s ti f yin g d e p u ty 15 t hat t h e n o n p r o d u c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e ma yg i v e r i s e t o t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a ti twou l d h a v e been adver s e t o t he part yw ho coul d have pr oduced i t
. ” St at e ex rel

. McD ougal l v. C or cor an , 153 A ri z. 1 5 7 , 1 6 0 , 735 P. 2d 767, 770 ( 1987)
. O urs upr eme cour thas s t at ed: “I ts t r i kes us as el ement al fai r nes s to all o w the S t at e t o comm entupon t he def ens e’ s fai l ur e t o adduce pot ent i al l yexcul pat or yevi dence t o w hi ch defenda nt had acce s s w hen def endanti s at t acki ng t he ac cur acyof t he St at e’ s evi dence
. ” I d. ¶27 H er e, a deput yt es t i fi ed that , aft erE dm i s t en w as appr ehende d, t he deputyhad i dent i f i e d Ed mi s t e n a s t h e p e r s o n who h a d p o i n t e d a g u n a th i m du r i n g t h e p o l i c e c h as e. E dm i s t en off

er ed evi dence i n an att empt t o s how t he i dent i fi cat i on had never happene d. T he pr os ecut orm er el ypoi nt ed outdur i ng cl os i n g arg u m ent s t hat , al t hough E dm i s t en had no b u rd e n to p re se n t an ye v id e n c e o r p ro v e a n y th in g , h e c o u ld h a v e c a lled a n o th e r d e p u ty
w ho— acc or di ng t o t he fi r s tdeputy ’ s t es t i m o n y
— h ad been pr es entatt he t i m e of the id e n tific a tio n . “ E lem e n tal f a irn e ss ” a llo w e d th e sta te to c o m m e n t o n E d m iste n ’s f a ilu re to
c a ll th is “ p o te n tia lly e x c u lp a to ry” w itn e s s . C or cor an , 1 5 3 A riz . at 1 6 0 , 7 3 5 P .2 d a t 7 7 0 ; s ee als o Herrer a , 2 0 3 A riz . 1 3 1 , ¶ 1 9 , 5 1 P .3 d a t 3 5 9 . T h e sta te w a s n o t u n r e a s o n a b le in
s ugges t i ng t hatE dm i s t en’ s fai l ur e t o pr oduce the w i t nes s gave r i s e t o an i nfer ence t hatt he

w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m ony w oul d have be en unfa vor abl e t o E dm i s t en. See Corcor an , 153 A r i z. at 4i dent i fi ed Edm i s t en, and ar guabl yt her e w as a need t o expl ai n w hyt he otherdeputydi d not

t es t i fy
. T he r eas oni ng i n C or ona i s t her efor e i nappl i cabl e. 16 160, 735 P. 2d at 770. B eca us e w e concl ude t he s t at e di d not engage i n p r os ecut or i al
m is c o n d u c t, E d m is te n c a n n o t s u s ta in h is b u rd e n to s h o w f u n d a m e n ta l e rr o r. See H ender s on , 21 0 A ri z. 56 1, ¶ 23 , 1 1 5 P .3 d a t 6 08 (t o est abli sh fun dam ental err or, defe nd ant m ustfi rs t sh o w erro r). C oncl usi on ¶28 I n l i ghtof t he for egoi ng, w e concl ude no fundament al err orr es ul t ed fr om t he t r i al cour t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons t o t he j ur yorfro m t he pr os ecut or ’ s r emar ks dur i ng cl os i ng argum ent. W e t herefore affi rm E dm i st en’s conv i ct i on s and sen t ences.

____________________________________ J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge

CO NC UR RI NG:

____________________________________ J O H N PE L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge

____________________________________ J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge