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 E RG I O AL ONZ O R UB I O, A p p e llan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C R 2007- 0020

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
- 20061275 H onor abl e H ow ar d H antm 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 , E r i c J
. O l s s on, and R ober tJ
. G or m an
L aw O ffi ce of

D avi d A l an D arby , E s q. B yD avi d A l an D arby T ucs on A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

T ucs on A t t or neyforA 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 , appel l antSer gi o R ubi o w as co n v ict ed of s ever al offe ns es i ncl udi ng arm ed r obbery , aggr avat ed as s aul t , and unl aw ful us e of a m eans of tr ans por t at i on. S EP 19 2008 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

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

T he tr i al cou rtsent enced him t o co ncu rr ent pr i son term s, t he l on gest of w hich i s 10. 5 y ears . A ll ch a rg e s s tem m e d f

ro m a c a rja c k in g th a t R u b io c o m m itt e d a t g u n p o in t. O n a p p e a l, R u b io claim s the tr ial co u rt erred b yrejecti n g a p rop o sed p lea a g ree m en t, fa il ing to stri k e a juro r, and deny i ng R ubi o’ s m ot i on for a j udgm ent of acqui t t al
. B eca us e R ubi o fai l ed t o pr es erve t he j u r o ri s s u e f

o ra p p e l l a t e r e v i e w an d t h e t r i a l c o u r td i d n o te r ro ra b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n on t h e o t h e ri s s u e s , we a f

f i r m. R e j e c t i on o f

t he Pl e a Agre e m e nt ¶2 R ubi o fi r s tar gues t he tr i al cour terr ed byaddi ng a p roc edura l hur dl e and
r ej ect i ng a pr opos ed p lea agre ementas unt i m el y . W e r evi ew t he r ej ect i on of a pl ea
a g re e m e n t f

o r a n a b u s e o f th e tr ia l co u rt ’s d is c re tio n . See Esp in o za v . M a rtin , 182 A r i z. 145, 14 7, 89 4 P
. 2d 68 8, 69 0 (199 5). A s R ub i o n otes ,

( 1) t her e i s a r i ghtt o negot i at e a pl ea, i f the part i es s o choos e, and ( 2) a tr i al j udge maynotadd pr ocedur al hur dl es t o t he exer ci s e of t hat r i ght t hat ( 3) s erve as a bas i s fort he tr i al j udge to f o re g o e x e rc isin g in d iv id u a lize d c o n sid e ra tio n o n th e m e rits of the negot i at ed pl ea i n det erm i ni ng w hethert o acc eptorr ej ect it. S ta te v . D a re lli , 2 0 5 A ri z . 4 5 8 , ¶ 1 4 , 7 2 P .3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 1 (A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶3 B utt he r ecor d demonstr at es t hatthe t r i al cour tdi d notr ej ectt he pl ea ba s ed on
an yp roc ed u ral hu rdle. T h e co u rtex tens ivelyd iscu ssed w ith co u n sel th e g ran d jury t r ans cr i pt , R ubi o’ s pr i or r ecor d— w hi ch i ncl uded a s i m i l ar cr i m e of unl aw ful us e of a m eans
o f tr an spor t at i on— and the dange rR ubi o’ s act i ons pos ed t o t he comm uni t y . W hen the p ro se c u to r sta ted h is o p in io n th a t th e c o u rt w a s re jec tin g th e p lea o u t o f

f ru stra tio n w ith its t i m i ng, t he courts peci fi cal l yr efut ed thats ugges t i on. B eca us e the courtr ej ect ed the pl ea3

b a s e d e x p re s s ly o n a n “ in d iv id u a liz e d c o n s i d e r a t io n o n th e m e ri ts o f th e n e g o tia te d p le a ,”
a n d n o t o n tim e lin e s s g r o u n d s, it d id n o t im p o se a p ro c e d u ra l h u rd le a n d d id n o t ab u se its d is c re tio n . Id
. D en i al of R eq u est to Stri k e a J u ror for C au se ¶4 R ubi o nextar gues t he t r i al cour t err ed by fai l i ng t o r emove a pr os pect i ve j ur or fo r ca u se. H e ask ed the co u rtto stri k e a juro r w h o w o rke d at th e P im a C o u n tyA tt o rne y ’s O ffi ce, butt he courtr efus ed. Subse quent l y , R ubi o us ed t he si x per empt or y s t r i kes perm i t t ed byR ul e 18. 4( c) , A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. , on ot her j ur or s w hom he had notat t empt ed t o s t r i ke for
c a u s e b u ta d v i s e d t h e c o u r t h e s t i l l o b j e c t e d t o t h e c h a l l e n g e d j u r o rs i t t i n g o n h i s t r i a l
. He
now cl ai m s t he j ur or ’ s s ervi ce on t he cas e cr eat ed a pr es um pt i on of bi as and an a ppear ance
o f im p ro p ri e ty. ¶5 Re l y i n g i n p a r ton S tat e v. Hi ckm an , 205 A r i z. 192, 68 P. 3d 418 ( 2003) , t he sta te c o n ten d s th a t R u b io w a iv e d th is a rg u m e n t b yf a ili n g to u s e a p e re m p to rystrik e to
r emove t he j ur or . I n Hi ckm an , the su p re m e c o u rt o v e rtu rn e d th e a u to m a tic-r e v e rsa l ru le in S ta te v . H

u e rta , 175 A r i z. 262, 855 P. 2d 776 ( 1993) , and hel d a def endant ’ s cur at i ve us e of a perem ptorystri ke to r em ov e a prospecti ve jur or w ho shou l d h ave b een st ri cken for cause is s u b je c t to h a rm le s s e rr o r r e v ie w . Hi ckm an , 205 A r i z. 192, ¶¶ 20- 21, 39, 68 P. 3d at422, 4 2 7
. In d o in g s o , it re lie d o n tw o U n ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt c a s e s . I d. T he fir stw as R oss
v . Ok l a h o ma , 487 U
. S. 81, 88- 89 ( 1988) , i n w hi ch the Supr eme C our thel d t hatt he Si xt h and Four t eenth A m endment s w er e notvi ol at ed w hen s t at e l aw r equi r ed a d ef en d antt o us e a per empt or ys t r i ke t o cur e a tr i al cour t ’ s err oneo u s d en ial o f a chal l enge f orcaus e. T heI n di ct a, how ever , th e Supr eme C our tfur t hers t at ed that , underfede r al l aw , M ar t i nez- 1 Sal aza rw as not r equi r ed t o us e hi s per empt or ys t r i kes cur at i vel yand coul d have a l l ow ed the c h a lle n g e d ju ro r t o re m a in o n th e c a s e a n d p re s e rv e d th e is s u e f o r a p p e a l. M

ar t i nez - Sal az ar , 528 U
. S. at314- 15. T w o j us t i ces as s er t ed t hat t he m aj or i t y s houl d not have r eac hed t he i s s ue a n d th a t w a iv e r c o u ld a p p ly. Id

. at318. I n anyevent , w e ar e notbound bya dec i s i on t hat is b a s e d o n f

e d e ra l p ro c e d u ra l la w . See R oss , 48 7 U
. S. at89- 90 ( purpos e and mannerof ex erc ise o f p ere m p torystr ikes su b ject t o stat e law ). S e e , e.g ., P ick e n s v . S ta te , 7 8 3 S .W .2 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 5 (A rk . 1 9 9 0 ); S ta te v. G r aham , 780 2 P .2 d 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 8 (H a w . 1 9 8 9 ); P eop l e v . G leash , 5 6 8 N .E .2 d 3 4 8 , 3 5 3 -5 4 (Ill. A p p . C t. 1 9 9 1 ); W ill ia m s v . C o m m o n w e a lth , 8 2 9 S .W .2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 3 (K y . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); Met t etalv. S ta te , 6 0 2 S o . 2 d 8 6 4 , 8 6 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); Stat e v. D iFr is co , 64 5 A
. 2d 73 4, 7 5 1 -5 4 (N .J
. 1 9 9 4 ); Stat e v. Tranby , 4 3 7 N .W .2 d 8 1 7 , 8 2 4 -2 5 (N .D . 1 9 8 9 ); Stat e v. B r oom , 533 N
. E
. 2d 6 8 2 , 6 9 5 ( O h io 1 9 8 8 ); Stat e v. Mi ddl ebr ooks , 8 4 0 S .W .2 d 3 1 7 , 3 2 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 2 ); Stat e v. Menz i es , 8 8 9 P .2 d 3 9 3 , 3 9 8 (U tah 1 9 9 4 ); Stat e v. Tray l or , 4 8 9 N .W .2 d 6 2 6 , 6 2 9 (W is. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). 4 second w as U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

ar t i nez - Sal az ar , 528 U
. S. 304, 307, 317 ( 2000) , i n w hi ch the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld a d e f e n d a n t’s u se o f

a p e re m p to rystrik e to re m o v e a ju ro r w h o sh o u ld h ave been r emoved f

or caus e does not vi ol at e any “rul e- bas ed or cons t i tut i onal r igh t. ” It
n o te d th a t p e re m p to ry st ri k e s w e re “ a u x ilia ry” a n d “ n o t o f f e d e ra l c o n s titu tio n a l d im e n s io n .” Id

. at311. 1 ¶6 T he courti n Hi ckm an concl uded bys t at i ng the d efendanthad notexhaus t ed h is p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s a n d , th e re f o re , “ a n o b

je c tio n a b le ju ro r w a s n o t f o rc e d u p o n h im .” 205 A r i z. 192, ¶ 41, 68 P. 3d at427. A l t hough i tdi d notdefi ne “obj ect i onabl e j ur or , ” a
m aj or i t yof the j ur i s di ct i ons i tci t ed as havi ng r ej ect ed the aut om at i c- r ever s al rul e r equi r e a
s how i ng t hat t he r emai ni ng j ur orw as bi as ed ori ncompet entand s ubj ectt o a cha l l enge f or
c a u s e . Id

. ¶ 8
. T h e jurythat d ec ided H ickm an ’s ca se w as f air an d im p arti al an d there fo re 2 h e d id n o t s h o w p re

ju d ic e . Id

. ¶ 41.5

¶7 B eca us e H i ckman had r emoved t he cha l l enged j ur orw i t h a per empt or ys t r i ke, id

. ¶ 3, ours upr eme cour tdi d nothave t o addr es s t he pr eci s e ques t i on p rese nt ed her e:
w h ethe r a d ef

en d an t m u st eith er u se a n av ail ab le pe rem p torystr ike to cu re the tr ial co u rt ’s
a lleg e d e rro r o r w a iv e th e rig h t to ra ise th a t er ro r o n a p p e a l. B u t Hi ckm an m akes cl eart hat th e p u rp o s e o f

p e re m p to ry st ri k e s is to a s s u re a f a irtr ia l. Id

. ¶ 4 0
. Requi r i ng us e of a n
a v a ilab le p e re m p to rystrik e to re m o v e a ju ro r w h o sh o u ld h a v e b e e n stric k e n f o r c a u se is
cons i s t entw i t h t hatpurpos e. O n t he otherhand, i f a de fenda ntal l ow s a b iased jurornot
s t ruck forcaus e t o r emai n on t he j ur yand uses h is per empt or ys t r i kes on ot herj ur or s , he
c o n v e rts a situ a tio n th a t w o u ld h a v e b e e n h a r m le s s e rro r a t b e st in to p o ten tiallyre v e rsib le
err or . T hatappr oach doe s notfur t hert he goal of as s ur i ng a fai r t r i al
. T her efor e, t he cur eor - w ai ve rul e i s m or e cons i s t entw i t h t he pr i nci pl es announce d i n Hi ckm an . ¶8 A d d i t i o n a l l y, w e d o h a v e s o m e g e n e r a l g u i d a n c e f r o m o t h e r A r i z o n a a u t h o r i t y. Fi r s t , even i f a pr os pect i ve j ur or ’ s ans w er s s how he or she cannot be fai r and i m par t i al , t he d e f e n d a n t w a iv e s a n ye rr o r b yf a ilin g to tim e ly ch a lle n g e th a t ju ro r. Stat e v. B r avo , 131 A r i z. 168, 170- 71, 639 P. 2d 358, 360- 61 ( A pp. 1981)
. Fur ther, a d ef endantw ai ves anyerr or
conce r ni ng a s l eepi ng juro r b y r efus i ng t o s t i pul at e thatt he j ur orw oul d be exc us ed as an
a lte rn a te . S ta te v . S

p ra tt , 1 2 6 A riz. 18 4 , 1 8 7 -88 , 6 1 3 P
. 2 d 8 4 8 , 8 5 1 -52 (A p p . 1 9 8 0 ). A l t hough fai l ur e t o per empt or i ly str ike an al l egedl ybi as ed j ur ori s nott echni cal l yi nvi t ed
err or , a fi ndi ng of w ai ver i s i n keepi ng w i t h t he es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl e thata def endantw ho
c a u s e s e rr o r t o b e in

je c te d in to a c a s e w a iv e s a n ya p p e lla te re v ie w . See Stat e v. Logan , 200 A ri z. 56 4 , ¶ 9 , 3 0 P
. 3 d 6 3 1 , 6 3 2 -33 (20 0 1 ).6

¶9 T h e c rim in a l ru les th e m se lv e s a lso p ro v id e so m e g u id a n c e . “W h e n th e re is
re a so n a b le g ro u n d to b e liev e th a t a ju ro r c a n n o t re n d e r a f a ir a n d im p a rtial v e rd ict, th e c o u rt, on i t s ow n i ni t i at i ve, oron m ot i on of anypar ty , s hal l excus e the j ur orfr om s ervi ce i n t he
cas e. ” A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. 18. 4( b)
. A ft er any unfai r or i m par t i al j ur or s ar e excus ed forcaus e, t h e p a r t i e s a r e a l l o we d t o s t r i k e a d d i t i o n a l j u r o r s f o ra n yn o n d i s c r i mi n a t o r yr e a s o n . Ar i z . R. C rim . P . 1 8 .4 (c ), 1 8 .5 (g ); s ee Mar t i nez - Sal az ar , 528 U
. S. at314- 15 ( chal l enges m aynotbe based o n race, et hn i c ori gin, or gend er) ; S ta te e x rel

. R om l ey v. Su peri or C ou rt , 181 A r i z. 2 7 1 , 2 7 3 , 8 8 9 P
. 2 d 6 2 9 , 6 3 1 (A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) (sam e). A s n o ted a b o v e, th e p u rpo se o f p ere m p tory
s tr ik e s is to a s s u re th e s e le c tio n o f a q u a lif ie d a n d u n b ia s e d ju ry. See Stat e v. P ar is - Sheldon , 2 1 4 A riz . 5 0 0 , ¶ 2 6 , 1 5 4 P .3 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); s e e a l s o Hi ckm an , 2 0 5 A r i z. 192, ¶ 40, 68 P. 3d at 427. T he rul es pr es um e t hat any unqual i fi ed or bi as ed j ur orw i l l be exc us ed forcaus e, butt heyal s o pr ovi de anotherm echa ni s m i n t he per empt or y chal l enge t o achi eve t hi s r es ul t . I f an unqua l i fi ed orbi as ed j ur orr emai ns aft ert he for
- caus e cha l l enge, t hatj ur or can be s t ruck and a n i m par t i al j ur yachi eved. ¶10 A ddi t i onal l y , i n Hi ckm an , 205 A r i z. 192, ¶ 13, 68 P. 3d at421, t he courtci t ed W illia m T . P iz z i & M o rr is B . H o f f m a n , Jur y Sel ect i on E r r ors on Appeal , 3 8 Am
. Cr i m. L. R ev . 1 3 9 1 (20 0 1 ). A lth o u g h the c o u rtcit ed this art icl e fo r a d iffe ren t pro p o sit ion , ito ff ers
w ell -reaso n ed an aly sis th at su p p o rt s the ad o p ti o n o f a cu re-o r-w a iv e rule. T h e a u tho rs obs erve that“byanyl egi t i m at e i ns t i tut i onal m eas ur e” de fens e couns el i s i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o corr ectt he tr i al cour t ’ s err ori n deny i ng a cha l l enge fo r c au se bys t r i ki ng t he j ur or , t hus
a v o id in g th e c o s t an d tim e n e c e s s ita te d b y a n e w tr ia l. I d. at1436. Fur t her , defe ns e couns elN ot hi ng in t hi s cas e s ugges t s R ubi o’ s couns el had an i m pr operm ot i ve fornot 3 rem o v ing the ju ror a t i ssu e. W e n o te on ly the po tential fo r ab u se i n the a b sen ce o f a cu re-o rw ai ve rul e. 7 s houl d notbe enc our aged to all o w a “de m ons t r abl ybi as ed j ur or ” t o r emai n on t he j ur y
— del i ber at el yexpos i ng hi s orhercl i entt o t he r i s k of an unf ai rt r i al

— and then obt ai n a
re v e rs a l if

th e o u tc o m e is u n f

a v o ra b le
. Id

. at 14 0 4 -05
. T h e au tho rs c o n tend that a c u re-o rw aive rule “ is no t o n ly co m p ell ed b y the do ctri n es of w aive r, p lai n erro r an d inv it ed erro r, butt he contr arypos i t i on encour ages defe ns e l aw y er s t o engage i n t he ver y ki nds of games p la y in g th a t p u ts th e tr ia l s y s te m in p u b lic d is re p u te .” Id

. a t 1 4 3 4
. 3 ¶11 W e a ls o f in d g u id a n c e in a n o u t- o f -s ta te c a s e , Stat e v. B aker , 935 P.2d 503 (U tah 1 9 9 7 ). In th a t ca se , the U tah S u p re m e C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e sa m e iss u e th a t co n f ro n ts
u s an d ad o p ted th e c u re-o r-w aive rule, requ ir ing a d ef en d an t t o u se a n av ail ab le pe rem p tory
s tr ik e to re m o v e a n a lle g e d ly b ia s e d ju ro r if th e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie s th e c h a lle n g e . I d. at505- 06. Fai l ur e t o do s o cons t i tut es a “t act i cal w i t hdr aw al of [the def endant ’ s ] obj ect i on. ” I

d. at507. T he U t ah court ’ s r es ol ut i on of thi s i s s ue i s i n acc or d w i t h A r i zona w ai ver j ur i s prudence
. ¶12 W e conc l ude thatt he var i ous r i ght s and i nt er es t s i nvol ved ar e bett erbal ance d b ythe c u re-o r-w aive ru le
. See R oss , 4 8 7 U .S . at 8 8 -8 9 (1 9 8 8 ) (S ix th a n d F o u rte e n th A m en d m en ts no t o f

f e n d ed b yrule req u ir ing u se o f p ere m p torystr ikes to rem o v e juro rs
err oneous l ynots t ruck forcaus e)
. U ndert he gene r al hi er ar chyof s t r i kes cont empl at ed by t he rul e s , a nya nd a l l un fa i ror bi a s e d j ur or s w i l l be r e move d f orc a us e . A r i z . R. Cr i m. P. 1 8
. 4 ( b)
. B ut i f an err or occur s i n t hat pr oces s , t he defe ndant s houl d per empt or i l y s t r i ke aW e ac know l edge, as di d t he maj or i t yi n B aker , 9 3 5 P
. 2 d at 5 1 0 , a p o tential co n ce rn 4 t hatt he cur e- or - w ai ve rul e coul d be s een a s encour agi ng t r i al cour t s t o denys uch cha l l enges m o re f re e lyk n o w in g it i s in c u m b e n t o n th e d e f e n d a n ts to c u re a n ye rro r b yu sin g th e ir avai l abl e per empt or ys t r i kes
. B utw e ar e conf i dentt hatA r i zona’ s t r i al j udges w i l l cont i nue t o per form t hei rdut i es i m par t i al l y and t o t he bes tof thei rabi l i t ybys t r i ki ng anypr os pect i ve ju ro r fo r c a u se w h e n n e c e ss a rya n d a p p ro p ria te
. See St at e v. C r opper , 205 A r i z. 181, ¶ 22, 6 8 P
. 3 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 1 (20 0 3 ) (tri al j u d g e stron g lyp resu m ed to b e f ree fro m b ias an d p rejud ice); Stat e v. Thornt on , 187 A r i z. 325, 330, 929 P. 2d 676, 681 ( 1996) ( “I f con front ed w i t h a chal l enge f

orcaus e i n w hi ch th e fa cts do notcl ear l yes t abl i s h w hethera pr os pect i ve j ur or sh o u ld b e re m o v ed , the b ett er prac ti ce w il l b e t o reso lve do u b t in f av o r of d isqu ali fica ti o n . ”). 8 t rul y bi as ed or unqual i fi ed j ur or befor e per empt or i l y s t r i ki ng a j ur orfora l es s err eas on not
a f f e c tin g h is rig h t to a f

a ir a n d im p a rtial tria l. W e h o ld , the re f o re , tha t a d e f

e n d a n t is
r equi r ed t o us e an a vai l abl e perem p tor ys t r i ke t o r emove an obj ect i onabl e j ur orw hom t he t r i al cour thas r efus ed t o r emove for caus e i n or der t o pr es erve the i s s ue forappea l
. Fai l i ng 4 to d o so w aive s an yerro r. ¶13 R ubi o di d notus e an a vai l abl e per empt or ystr ike to r emove t he cha l l enged j ur or . R ather , he us ed hi s s i x s t r i kes o n juro rs h e d id notchal l enge f orcaus e. A l t hough R u b io d id n o t cr e a te th e a lleg e d e rro r, h e h a d th e m e a n s a n d o p p o r tu n ityto c o rre c t it
. T her efor e, he has w ai ved anyerr ori n t he tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of hi s for
- caus e cha l l enge. R ul e 20 M ot i on ¶14 R u b io f

inal l y ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t err ed by deny i ng hi s m ot i on for a j udgm entof ac qui t t al , pur s uantto R u le 2 0 , A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. , buthe fa i l s t o s peci fyany d e f e c ti n t h e s t a t e ’ s e v i d e n c e . He t h e r e f o r e h a s wa i v e d t h i s c l a i m o n a p p e a l
. Ar i z . R. Cr i m. P . 3 1 .1 3 (c )(1 )(v i); Stat e v. B ol t on , 1 8 2 A ri z. 29 0 , 2 9 8 , 8 9 6 P
. 2 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 8 (19 9 5 ).9

¶15 M or eover , acc or di ng t o t he s t at ementof fa ct s in R u b io’s ow n br i ef, he w as id e n tifie d b yth e v ictim a n d a n o th e r w itn e ss , a n d th e e v id e n c e R u b io c ites o v e rw h e lm in g ly
s u p p o rt s th e c o n v ic tio n s . S e e S ta te v . H a ll , 2 0 4 A riz . 4 4 2 , ¶ 4 9 , 6 5 P .3 d 9 0 , 1 0 2 (2 0 0 3 ) (R u le 2 0 m o ti o n g ran ted o n lyw h en n o su b stan ti al ev iden ce p rese n ted). C oncl usi on ¶16 I n l i ghtof the for egoi ng, R ubi o’ s convi ct i ons and s ent ence s ar e af fi r m ed.

____________________________________ 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