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. ROBER T L EE ROY SL OVER, A p p e llan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C R 2007- 0379

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF G I LA C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C R 20050508 H onor abl e Pet erJ
. C ahi l l , J udge AFFI RM ED I N PA RT; VA CA TED I N PA RT A ND REM AN DED

T err yG oddar d, A r i zona A t t or neyG ener al B yK ent E. C at t ani and Jon at han B ass
E m i l yD ani es T ucs on A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

T ucs on A t t or neyforA ppel l ant
E C K E R S T R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge. FEB -9 2009 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOSl overor i gi nal l yt ol d offi cer s w ho r es ponded t o t he s cene t hathe had be en dr i vi ng 1 the v eh icl e, bu t l ater stated to m ed ical pe rson n el t h at he h ad b ee n the p asse n g er. 2 ¶1 A ppel l antR ober tSl overw as convi ct ed af t era j ur yt r i al of negl i genthom i ci de, dr i vi ng undert he i nfl uence of an i nt oxi cant( D U I ) , an d d ri vi ng w i t h a bl ood al cohol
conce nt r at i on of . 08 orm or e. T he t r i al cour t s ent ence d hi m t o a mi t i gat ed, t w o- y eart er m of im p ri so n m entfornegl i genthom i ci de, and, fort he othert w o offe ns es , s us pended the im p o sitio n o f

se n ten c e , p lac in g h im o n c o n c u rre n t term s o f f iv e y e a rs’ p ro b a tio n . O n a p p e a l, Sl overar gues t he t r i al cour t er r ed i n or der i ng hi m t o payt he vi ct i m ’ s w i fe’ s at t or neyfee s as
re stitu tio n to th e e x ten t th o se f e e s c o m p e n sa ted th e a tto rn e yf o r a ss istin g th e sta te in h is pr os ecut i on. Sl over al s o cont ends t he cour t err ed i n deny i ng hi s r eques tfora j ur yi ns t ruct i on
o n a su p e rse d in g c a u se o f d e a th , ref

u sin g to a d m it h a b it ev id e n c e th a t S lo v e r a n d th e v ictim d ro v e e a c h o th e r’s v e h icle s, a n d d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r m istria l b a se d o n a tain ted ju ryp o o l. For t h e f

o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m S l o v e r ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s b u t v a c a t e t he por t i on of t he r es t i tut i on or der aw ar di ng t he vi ct i m ’ s w i fe at t or ney fee s i ncurr ed i n as s i s t i ng the s tat e in its pro sec u ti o n o f S lov er. ¶2 W e v iew the facts i n the l i gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o sust ai ning t he co nv i ct i on s,
r es ol vi ng confl i ct s i n t he evi dence and t he re as onabl e i nfer ence s ar i s i ng fr om t he evi dence
a g a in s t th e d e f

e n d a n t. St at e v. Zm i ch , 1 6 0 Ar i z . 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 , 7 7 0 P
. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 7 ( 1 9 8 9 )
. At t r i al , t he evi dence s how ed t hat Sl over had bee n dr i vi ng hi s pi ckup truck on a rur al hi ghw ay atni ght
. T he truck l eftt he r oadw ayand r ol l ed dow n an em b an km ent , l andi ng on i t s r oof

1T he s t at e has t aken no pos i t i on on t hi s i s s ue. 2 3 and hood overa s hal l ow cr eek. O ffi cer s found t he pass engerof t he truck dea d, l y i ng i n t he
cr eek w i t h hi s head s ubm er ged i n t he w at er . T he vi ct i m ’ s bl ood al cohol conce nt r at i on w as

. 231 att he t i m e of hi s death. W i t hi n t w o hour s of t he ac ci dent , Sl over ’ s bl ood al cohol
conce nt r at i on w as . 165. ¶3 A f

ter b e in g tre a ted f

o r h is in ju rie s, S lo v e r w a s a rre ste d a n d c h a rg e d w ith
m an slau g h ter, D U I, an d d ri v ing w ith a b loo d alco h o l co n ce n tr ati o n o f . 0 8 o r m o re. T h e jury f o u n d S lo v e r g u iltyo f

n e g lig e n t h o m icid e a n d th e tw o o th e r c h a rg e s. S lo v e r f iled a tim e ly not i ce of appea l fr om t he j udgm entand s ent ence . RE S T I T UT I ON ¶4 S lov er a rgu e s th e tri al co u rterred w h en ito rde red h im to p aythe v ict im ’s
w i fe’ s at t or neyfee s , i ncurr ed i n as s i s t i ng t he s t at e i n pur s ui ng t he cas e, as par tof r es t i tut i on. 2 W e re v ie w a re s titu tio n o rd e r f o r a n a b u s e o f th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n . St at e v. R eynolds , 1 7 1 A riz . 6 7 8 , 6 8 1 , 8 3 2 P .2 d 6 9 5 , 6 9 8 (A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). A trial c o u rt a b u se s its d isc re tio n if it
m is a p p lie s th e la w o r e x e rc is e s its d is c re tio n b a s e d o n in c o rr e c t le g a l p ri n c ip le s . S e e S ta te
v. Jack s on , 2 0 8 A ri z. 56 , ¶ 1 2 , 9 0 P
. 3 d 7 9 3 , 7 9 6 (A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). S lov er c o n tend s the fe es w ere “unnec es s arycons equent i al damages ” bec aus e the victi m ’s w i fe di d notneed t o hi r e an att o rne yto rep rese n t her in th e c ri m inal m att er. ¶5 U nder A
. R
. S
. § 13- 603( C ) , a per s on convi ct ed of a n offe ns e must“make
r es t i tut i on t o t he .
. . i m m edi at e fa m i l yof t he vi ct i m i f t he vi ct i m has di ed, i n t he ful l amountA tt he t i m e Sl overcomm i t t ed t he offe ns es , t hi s s ame pr ovi s i on w as found i n for m er 3 A .R .S . § 1 3 -1 0 5 (1 4 ). See 1995 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s , ch. 199, § 1. 4 of t he ec onom i c l os s as det erm i ned byt he court . ” Econom i c l os s as t he r es ul tof t he
c o m m iss io n o f a n o f

f e n se “ in c lu d e s lo st in ter e st, lo st e a rn in g s a n d o th e r lo ss e s th a t w o u ld nothave be en i ncur r ed butfort he off ens e” butdo noti ncl ude damages fo r p ai n and
su ff ering , p u n it ive d am ag es, or c o n seq u en ti al da m ag es. A
. R
. S
. § 1 3 -10 5 (16 ). 3

C ons equent i al damages ar e s uch as ar e notpr oduced w i t houtt he c o n c u rre n c e o f

so m e o th e r ev e n t a ttribu tab le to th e sa m e o rig in o r c a u se ; s u c h d a m a g e , los s, o r in ju rya s d o e s n o t f

lo w d ire c tly and i m m edi at el yfr om t he ac t i on of t he part y , butonl y fr om t he cons equenc es orresu lt s of s uch ac t . T he t er m m ayi ncl ude damage w hi ch i s s o r emot e as nott o be ac t i onabl e. S ta te v . Mo rr is , 1 7 3 A ri z . 1 4 , 1 7 , 8 3 9 P .2 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 7 (A p p . 1 9 9 2 ), quot i ng2 5 C .J .S
. D am ages § 2, at617. I n s um , a courts houl d or derr es t i tut i on for“damages t hatfl ow di r ect l yfr om t he defe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal conduct , wi th outt he i nt er vent i on of addi t i onal caus at i ve fa ct or s . ” S ta te
v. W i lki ns on , 2 0 2 A ri z. 27 , ¶ 7 , 3 9 P
. 3 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 3 (20 0 2 ). ¶6 Sl overemphasi zes t he vi ct i m ’ s w i fe w as nota part yi n t he cr i m i nal cas e and h a d t h e r e b e e n a v i o l a t i o n o f h e rr i g h t s i n t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s , s h e “ h a d f u l l a c c e s s t o a c r i me vi ct i m advoc ate an d t he pr os ecut i ng at t or ney . ” Thus, he cont ends , t he att or neyfee s s he i ncurr ed t o pur s ue t he cr i m i nal char ges agai ns t Sl over di d not r es ul t fr om Sl over ’ s cr i m i nal conductbutfr om t he fa ct t hat t he vi ct i m ’ s w i fe unnece s s ar i l yhi r ed an a t t or neyt o as s i s tt he p rose cu tor.S lov er w as also o rde red to p ay resti tuti o n fo r th e att o rne y fe es to sett le t h e v ict im ’s 4 e s ta te , w h ic h h e d id n o t co n te s t b e lo w o r in th is a p p e a l. See S t ate v. Sp ears , 184 A r i z. 277, 292, 908 P. 2d 1062, 1077 ( 1996) ( concl udi ng “‘ cus t om aryand r eas onabl e a tt o rne y ’ s fee s incu rred to clo se th e v ict im ’s e s tate’” co n sti tute ec o n o m ic l o ss f o r resti tuti o n p u rpo ses), q u o tin gS ta te v . B a ltze ll , 1 7 5 A ri z. 43 7 , 4 3 9 , 8 5 7 P
. 2 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 3 (A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). 5 ¶7 T he r ecor d befor e us s ugg e s t s Sl o v e rh a s c o rr e c t l yc h a r act er i zed the r ol e pl ay ed byt he w i fe’ s couns el , M i chae l H arper , dur i ng t he cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng s. D ur i ng t he
r es t i tut i on hear i ng, H arperpr es ent ed evi dence of expe ns es h e had i ncurr ed i n connec t i on
w i t h h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i s c l i e n ti n t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s tS l o v e r . S p e c i f i c a l l y, h e en u m era ted ac ti o n s h e ha d take n to hav e “th[ e] case p u rsue d b y the C o u n ty A ttorn ey ’s O ffi ce. ” H e al s o t ol d t he courthe had be en “qui t e voca l and qui t e ac t i ve” i n encour agi ng t he
s t at e t o fi l e cha r ges and w as “ac t i ve i n t r y i ng t o l ocat e [Sl over ] out of s t at e. ” H e s t at ed he had w or ked t o as s ur e thatevi dence w as pr oper l ypr es er ved. T he courtchar act er i zed H arper ’ s act i ons dur i ng t he cr i m i nal pr oceedin g s as “a ssi s t i ng t he St at e, . . . pr oddi ng t he offi cer s , and .
. . pr o d d ing t he St at e as w el l , ” and or der ed Sl overt o payt he vi ct i m ’ s w i fe
r es t i tut i on forH arper ’ s s er vi ces i n t he amount of $5, 028. 4 ¶8 I n es s ence , H arper act ed i n t he r ol e of an adj unctpr os ecut or , “pr oddi ng” t he sta te to p u rsu e th e c a se a n d a p p a re n tlya ss istin g it w ith th e p ro se c u tio n . T o th a t ex ten t, his fee s di d notfl ow di r ect l y fr om t he defe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal conduct but r atherar os e fr om ei t her the s tat e’s ina b il ityto p rose cu te t h e c ase ind ep en d en tl yan d co m p eten tl yo r t h e w ife’s
m i s t rus tt hati tw oul d do s o. T hos e fa ct or s cons t i tut ed an a ddi t i onal caus e, i ndepende ntof S lo v e r’ s o w n c ri m in a l c o n d u c t, th a t re s u lte d in th e a tto rn e yf e e s a t is s u e . See W

i lki ns on , 2026

A r i z. 27, ¶ 10, 39 P. 3d at 1133 ( l os s es t hat “w oul d not have occurr ed w i t houtt he conc ur r ence
o f a se c o n d c a u sa l e v e n t” w e re c o n se q u e n tial d a m a g e s); St at e v. Sexton , 176 A r i z. 171, 173, 859 P. 2d 794, 796 ( A pp. 1993) ( damages r es ul t i ng fr om defe ndant ’ s conduct and act i on or in a c tio n o f

o th e rs to o in d ire c t to re c o v e r in re stitu tio n ); St at e v. P ear ce , 156 A r i z. 287, 289, 751 P. 2d 603, 605 ( A pp. 1988) ( l os t pr ofi t s cons equent i al damages of t heft notfl ow i ng fr om t he ac t s t o w hi ch defenda nt pl ed gui l t y )
. T hos e fe es w er e ther efor e cons equent i al r athert han di r ectdamages ar i s i ng fr om Sl over ’ s cr i m e and not r ecove r abl e as r es t i tut i on underA r i zona
s ta tu te . See 1 9 9 5 A ri z. S ess. L aw s, ch
. 1 9 9 , § 1 (fo rm er v ersion o f § 1 3 -10 5 (16 )). ¶9 W e do notaddr es s w hethers uch fe es w oul d be pr operr es t i tut i on i t ems under
o th e r f a c tu a l circ u m sta n c e s, su c h a s w h e n th e v ictim h ire s a n a tto rn e yto a ss e rt a c o n c re te ri g h t u n d e r t h e V ic tim s ’ B ill o f R ig h ts . See A ri z. C o n st. art. II, § 2
. 1 ; A
. R
. S
. § § 1 3 -44 0 3 (A ), 1 3 -4 4 3 7 (A ); s e e a l

s o S t a t e v . Gu i l l i a ms , 208 A r i z. 48, ¶¶ 18- 19, 23, 90 P. 3d 785, 790- 91, 792 (A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (c au sati o n d eterm ination ca se-sp ec ifi c in resti tuti o n co n text). H ere , h o w ev er,
w her e i t i s cl ear t he at t or ney ’ s r epr es ent at i on of t he vi ct i m i n t he cr i m i nal m at t ercons i s t ed of t as ks t hat w er e actual l yt he s t at e’ s r es pons i bi l i t y , t hos e att or neyfee s w er e noti ncurr ed as a di r ectr es ul tof t he off ens es Sl overhad comm i t t ed. S UP E RS E DI NG CA US E I NS T RU CT I ON ¶10 S lov er a rgu es th e tri al co u rterred w h e n it d e n ied h is r eq u est fo r a jury i ns t ruct i on on s uper s edi ng caus e, as s er t i ng i tw as s uppor t ed byr easo n ab l e evi dence i n t he
rec o rd. W e r e v ie w f

o r a n ab u se o f d iscreti o n a tri al co u rt ’s de n ial o f a req u ested jury7

in s tr u c tio n . St at e v. C ox , 217 A r i z. 353, ¶ 15, 174 P. 3d 265, 268 ( 2007)
. A tt r i al , Sl over
re q u e ste d a su p e rse d in g c a u se in stru c tio n , a rg u in g th e re w a s e v id e n c e th a t “ th e a c c id e n t in th is c a se d id n ’t p ro d u c e f a tal in ju rie s o r in

ju rie s th a t b yth e m se lv e s w o u ld c a u se th e d e a th of [ t he v i ct i m ]. ” S pecifi cal l y , S l ov er cont end s there w as no d efi nit iv e e vidence the cr ash
r ender ed the vi ct i m uncons ci ous , and t her efor e t he vi ct i m coul d have c r aw l ed outof t he truck
a n d g o tten in th e w a ter b yh im se lf a n d th e n b e e n u n a b le to re m o v e h im se lf d u e to h is i nt oxi cat i on. ¶11 A n in ter v e n in g e v e n t m u st b e u n f o re se e a b le a n d a b n o rm a l o r e x tra o rd in a ryto q u a lifya s a su p e rse d in g c a u se th a t ca n e x c u se a d e f e n d a n t f ro m liab ili tyf

o r a c rim in a l ac t. Stat e v. B ass , 198 A r i z. 571, ¶¶ 12- 13, 1 2 P
. 3 d 7 9 6, 801 ( 2000) ( r ecogni zi ng cr i m i nal sta n d a rd f

o r su p e rse d in g c a u se sa m e a s c iv il ); s e e a l s o R o s s e l lv . V

o lk s wa g e n o f A m. , 147 A ri z. 16 0, 16 8, 70 9 P
. 2d 51 7, 52 5 (198 5) ( defe nd ant not l i able onl yw hen i nterven i ng cause
con si dered supersedi ng cause). H ow ever, “[a]n i nterven i ng force i s n ot a sup ers eding cau se i f t he or i gi nal act or ’ s negl i gence cr eat es t he ver y r i s k of har m t hatcaus es t he i nj ur y . ” Y oung
v. E nvt l

. A i rP r ods

. , I

nc. , 1 3 6 A ri z . 2 0 6 , 2 1 2 , 6 6 5 P .2 d 8 8 , 9 4 (A p p . 1 9 8 2 ), m odi f i ed on other g ro u n d s a n d a ff’d , 136 A r i z. 158, 665 P. 2d 40 ( 1983)
. N orcan a n i nt er ven ing caus e be
con si dered a s up ers eding cause w hen t he d efen dan t ’s con du ct“i ncreases the fo res eeable r i sk of a pa r t i cul arh arm occurr i ng t hr ough .
. . a s econd a ct or . ” O nt i ver os v. B or ak , 136 A r i z. 5 0 0 , 5 0 6 , 6 6 7 P
. 2 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 (19 8 3 ).8

¶12 T h e trial c o u rt re f u se d to g iv e th e in stru c ti on , fi nd i ng “i t ’s ce rta in lyf o re se e a b le t haty ou go dow n a r el at i vel ys t eep a nd l ong hi l l
. . . t hatt her e w oul d be a c any on t her e, and

. . . th a t th e re w o u ld b e w a ter th e re .” T h e c o u rt f o u n d it w a s irre lev a n t w h e th e r th e v ictim had got t en out of t he t ruck on hi s ow n or been ej ect ed, t hat Sl over ’ s act i ons had pl ace d t he vi ct i m “i n a s i tuat i on w her e r eas onabl yhe coul d nothave e xt r act ed hi m s el f, ” w hi ch pr ecl uded t he s uper s edi ng caus e i ns t ruct i on. ¶13 B ot h t he s t at e’ s m edi cal exami ner , w ho per for m ed the vi ct i m ’ s aut ops y , and t he def ens e’ s expertw i t nes s , the C hi ef M edi cal E xami nerforY avapa i C ount y , agr eed that t he ca us e of t he vi ct i m ’ s death w as as phy xi at i on caus ed by “dr ow ni ng and bl unti nj ur i es of t he head.” T h e m edi cal exami nerw ho per for m ed the aut ops ydet er m i ned the ca us e of d row n ing w as a l os s of cons ci ous nes s due t o a hea d i nj ury . T he C hi ef M edi cal E xami ner t es t i fi ed that , al t hough t he fi ndi ngs s ugges t ed a pos s i bl e l os s of consc i ous nes s , he di s agr eed
w i t h t he conc l us i on i n the au topsyr epor tt hatt he vi ct i m had def i ni t el ybeen unc ons ci ous
w hen he s uffoc at ed. H e opi ned i tw as pos s i bl e fors om eone t o be cons ci ous buti nt oxi cat ed enough t o dr ow n and concl uded t he vi ct i m ’ s bl ood al cohol conce nt r at i on w as hi gh enough that itco u ld h av e p rev en ted h im fro m takin g h is he ad o u t of the w ater. ¶14 E ven assum ing the l at t ert es t i m onyw as s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a pot ent i al i nt er veni ng caus e fort he vi ct i m ’ s death, i tcoul d not cons t i tut e a supe r s edi ng caus e t o r el i eve Sl overo f li abi l i t y . Sl over ’ s conductof dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed w as t he veryr eas on t he
v ictim h a d e n d e d u p n e a r o r in a c re e k , into x ica ted , w ith h e a d in ju rie s, a n d , at th e v e rylea st,9

in c re a s e d th e f

o re s e e a b le ri s k th a t th e v ic tim w o u ld d ie in th e a c c id e n t. S e e R o u rk v . S ta te , 170 A r i z. 6 , 12, 821 P. 2d 273, 279 ( A pp. 1991) ( fi ndi ng acc i dentcaus ed byi nt oxi cat ed dr i verpar tof for es eea bl e cha i n of event s even t hough exac tdet ai l s of dr i ver ’ s conductnot f o re se e a b le) ; s ee al

s o St at e v. V

andeve r , 211 A r i z. 206, ¶ 8, 119 P. 3d 473, 475 ( A pp. 2005) (oth er d ri v er e x ce ed ing sp ee d li m itn o t sup erse d ing ca u se o f c o llisi o n w h en d ef en d an t’ s i l l egal conductcr eat ed for es eea bl e r i s k of col l i s i on)
. Sl overw as t her efor e notent i t l ed t o an i ns t ruct i on on s uper s edi ng caus e, and the courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n s o fi ndi ng. HABI T E VI DE NCE ¶15 S lo v e r a rg u e s th e trial c o u rt e rre d in su sta in in g th e sta te’ s o b jec tio n to h is pr opos ed habi tevi dence
. W e r evi ew a t r i al cour t ’ s rul i ng on t he admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S ta te v . S

p re itz , 1 9 0 A ri z. 12 9 , 1 4 6 , 9 4 5 P
. 2 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 7 7 (19 9 7 ). Sl overm ai nt ai ned att r i al t hathe had notbeen dr i vi ng and di d not caus e the vi ct i m ’ s death. I n s uppor tof t he ar gum ent , Sl over at t empt ed t o admi tevi dence he and the vi ct i m s om et i m es dr ove ea ch ot her ’ s vehi cl es . A tan evi dent i aryhear i ng on t he four t h dayof t r i al , Sl over at t empt ed t o pr ovi de founda t i on forhabi tevi dence t hr ough t he t es t i m onyof a ga s st at i on at t endantw ho knew Sl overand t he vi ct i m . She t es t i fi ed t hat , over t he four
- y ear per i od s he had w or ked t her e, w hen t he m en cam e i nt o t he st or e t ogether , Sl overfr equent l yw as dr i vi ng
w hen theyarr i ved w hi l e the vi ct i m w as t he dr i verw hen theyl eft
. She al s o t es t i fi ed both m en d ro v e b lac k tru c k s a n d sh e c o u ld n o t tell th e tru c k s a p a rt.10

¶16 R ule 406, A ri z. R
. E vid. , provides:

E vi dence of t he habi t of a per s on or of t he r out i ne pr act i ce of an or gani zat i on, w hethercorr obor at ed or not and r egar dl es s of t he pr es ence of ey ew i t nes s es , is r el evantt o pr ove thatt he conduc t o f th e p e rso n o r o rg a n iza tio n o n a p a rticu lar o c c a s io n w a s in conform i t yw i t h t he habi torr out i ne pr act i ce. H a b it e v id e n c e , a s o p p o s e d to c h a ra c te r e v id e n c e , is g e n e ra lly a d m is s ib le
. S p re itz , 190 A r i z. at146, 945 P. 2d at1277. T he rul e cont empl at es conductt hati s “sem i- aut om at i c and
r egul ar . ” S ta te v . Mu n g u ia , 1 3 7 A riz . 6 9 , 7 2 , 6 6 8 P .2 d 9 1 2 , 9 1 5 (A p p . 1 9 8 3 ); a c c o rdS ta te
v. Ser na , 163 A r i z. 260, 266, 787 P. 2d 1056, 1062 ( 1990)
. “H abi tdes cr i b es o n e’ s r egul ar
r es pons e t o a r epea t ed s peci fi c s i tuat i on, w hi l e char act er r efe r s t o a gener al i zed de s cr i pt i on of one’ s di s pos i t i on. ” B os w el lv. P hoeni x N ew s papers , I nc. , 152 A r i z. 1, 4, 730 P. 2d 178, 1 8 1 (A p p . 1 9 8 5 ), appr oved as s uppl em ent ed , 152 A r i z. 9, 730 P. 2d 18 6 (19 8 6 ).

“ [ E ]s ta b lis h in g h a b it r e q u i r e s m o re th a n a s p a rs e s e le c tio n o f is o la te d e p is o d e s .” G asi orow ski v. H

ose , 1 8 2 A ri z. 37 6 , 3 8 0 , 8 9 7 P
. 2 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 2 (A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). ¶17 H er e, t he tr i al cour texhaus t i vel yexpl ai ned i t s r eas ons forsu stai n ing t he obj ect i o n . I t f

o u n d t h e a t t e n d a n t ’ s t e s t i mon y h a d n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e c o nduct at i s s ue— t he vi ct i m d ri v i ng Sl over ’ s t ruck— w as “s emi
- aut om at i c orr efl e[x] i ve, ” or
su f f icie n tlysp e c if

ic, re g u lar o r n u m e r o u s to q u a lif ya s h a b it ev id e n c e . In su m m in g u p its
re a so n s, th e c o u rt sta ted , “T h e e v id e n c e is n o t sp e c if ic o r fre q u e n t e n o u g h to q u a lifya s h a b it. I ns t ead, i tw as t o s how m er el ya t endenc yat one l ocat i on, the [ga s s ] t at i on, underpar t i cul ar11

ci r cumst ance s w hi ch don’ tappl yand ar e notpr es enther e, that one w oul d dr i ve t o and the
o th e r w o u ld d ri v e a w a y .” ¶18 W e a g re e w ith th a t re a so n in g a n d h o ld th a t th e trial co u rt d id n o t a b u s e its di s cr et i on w hen i t concl uded t he evi dence w as not admi s s i bl e as evi dence o f h ab itu nder R u le 4 0 6
. See Se r na , 163 A r i z. at265- 66, 787 P. 2d at 1061- 62 ( t es t i m onyi tw as comm on k n o w led g e a m o n g in m a tes th a t co o p e ra tio n w ith p riso n a d m in istra tio n re su lted in im m u n ity
a n d f a v o ra b le tre a tm e n t d id n o t sh o w ro u tin e p ra c tice u n d e r R u le 4 0 6 ); Mu n g u ia , 137 A r i z.
a t 7 1 -7 2 , 6 6 8 P .2 d a t 9 1 4 -1 5 (e v id e n c e a ss a u lt v ictim “ o f ten b u m m e d d rin k s” n o t ad m iss ib le
u n d er R u le 40 6 b ec au se n o t “sem i- au tom ati c a n d reg u lar”). M OTI ON F OR M I S TR I AL ¶19 Sl overar gues t he t r i al cour t err ed w hen i t deni ed hi s m ot i on for a mi s t r i al aft er a j ur or w as r emoved f

or caus e on t he four t h day of t r i al
. W e r evi ew a t r i al cour t ’ s deni al of
a m o tio n f

o r m is tr ia l f

o r a c le a r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S t a t e v . Wi l l i a ms , 209 A r i z. 228, ¶ 47, 9 9 P
. 3 d 4 3 , 5 4 (A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). “T h e tr ial jud g e is i n the b est p o sit ion to d eterm ine w h ethe r a par t i cul ari nci dentcal l s for a mi s t r i al beca us e the tr i al j udge i s aw ar e of the atm os pher e of th e trial, th e c irc u m sta n c e s su rro u n d in g th e in c id e n t, th e m a n n e r in w h ich a n yo b jec tio n a b le
s t at ement w as m ade, and t he pos s i bl e ef fec ton t he j ur yand the tr i al
. ” I d. ¶20 A tthe cl os e of the thi r d dayof t r i al , t he pros ecut or i nfor m ed t he t r i al cour ts he had j ust l earned her dau gh t er had been spend i ng t i m e w i t h the dau gh t er of on e of the j urors . B ef o re tri al be g an o n the f

o u rt h d ay , S lov er m o v ed to stri k e the juro r fo r ca u se. T h e c o u rt12

ques t i oned the j ur or , and t hen Sl over ’ s couns el as ked i f she ha d al er t ed anyof t he ot her j ur or s aboutherdaught er ’ s r el at i ons hi p w i t h t he pr os ecut or ’ s daught er . T he j ur orr es ponded t hat , as s he had been w r i t i ng a quest i on for t he cour t on t hat very t opi c, t he otherj ur or s as ked herabouti t s cont entand s he r es ponded onl yt hat“i thad t o do w i t h a p lay d ate of our daught er s . ” The defe ns e moved fora mi s tr i al on t he gr ound the j ur orhad s har ed the inf o rm ati o n . T h e c o u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n b u t exc u sed the ju ror. ¶21 T he tr i al cour tt hen i nfor m ed the re m ai ni ng m ember s of t he panel t hatt he j ur or h a d b e e n e x c u se d , an d sta ted , “Y o u sh o u ld n o t d ra w a n yc o n c lu sio n s w h a tso e v e r f ro m th a t. Y ou s houl d nothol d i tagai ns tei t herpar t y , and ac tual l yy ou s houl d notgi ve i tanyfur t her t hought once w e ar e fi ni s hed her e t al ki ng abouti t . ” The cour tt hen as ked the j ur yi f any one had hea r d wha t t h e e x c u s e d j u r o r h a d s a i d whe n s h e was wr i t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n . One of t he
rem ai ning j urors st at ed h e had , bu tassur ed the cou rtt hat not hing he h ad heard w ou l d cau se hi m “t o be part i al i n t hi s cas e. ” A not herj ur ors t at ed s he “d[i d] n’ tr eal l yr emem berw hats he sai d, w hat i tw as t otal l yabo ut. ” T he co urt f in a llyasked, “A nybo dy , do y ou t hink bec ause of t he fa ctt hat[t he j ur or ] w as excus ed bec aus e of w hats he m ayhave t ol d y ou, w haty ou m ay
r emem ber , i f y ou can, . . . w oul d t hatcaus e y ou t o be part i al i n t hi s ca se to o ne s i de ort he ot her ?” T he courtr ece i ved no r es pons e t o t hi s ques t i on, and s t at ed, “D on’ tdr aw any concl us i ons fr om al l of t hat , i t ’ s no bi g deal , okay ?” T r i al t hen pr ocee ded. ¶22 Sl over now cont ends t he “i nfer ence of a r el at i ons hi p betw een a j ur orand t he pr os ecut or. . . s o cont ami nat ed the pane l t hatt heycoul d notfai r l yl i s t en t o t he evi dence and13

give i tt he im part i al deli berat i on [t o] w hich [S l ov er] w as enti t l ed. ” B ut a m i stri al i s “t he m ost dr amat i c r emedyfora t r i al err or ” and s houl d onl y be gra nt ed w hen “j us t i ce w i l l be thw ar t ed ot herw i s e. ” St at e v. R oque , 2 1 3 A riz . 1 9 3 , ¶ 1 3 1 , 1 4 1 P .3 d 3 6 8 , 3 9 9 (2 0 0 6 ). “T ria l co u rts have c ons i der abl e di s cr eti o n to det er m i ne w hetherj ur orm i s conductr equi r es a mi s t r i al or other c or r ect i ve ac t i on, and t he tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on w i l l notbe overtur ned abs enta cl ear abus e of t hatdi s cr et i on. ” St at e v. Apodaca , 166 A r i z. 274, 276- 77, 801 P. 2d 1177, 1179- 80 (A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). ¶23 Fi r s t , not hi ng i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s t he exc us ed j ur ori nfor m ed the pane l t hat herdaught erhad s pentt i m e w i t h t he pr os ecu tor ’ s daught er . R ather , t he j ur ort es t i fi ed s he had t ol d t he ot herj ur or s m or e vaguel y t hat her daught er had pl ay ed w i t h the daught erof one of t he at t or ney s . T hus , anym ember s of t he j ur y w ho had hear d t hats t at ement coul d nothave f o r m e d a b i a s a g a i n s te i t h e rp a r t y. ¶24 Second, even a s s um i ng t he exc us ed j ur orhad s peci fi cal l yr eferre d t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s daught er , t he onl y ot her j ur or w ho r emem ber ed hear i ng i t as s ur ed the courthe
c o u ld b e im p a rt ia l. See Stat e v. C l abour ne , 1 4 2 A ri z. 33 5 , 3 4 4 , 6 9 0 P
. 2 d 5 4 , 6 3 (19 8 4 ) (j u ry panel nott ai nt ed byone pan el m ember bl ur t i ng out“‘ t he ent i r e def ens e w as a l otof bal oney ’ ” w hen notcl earanyj ur or s hear d r emar k, j u rors int er vi ew ed s epar at el yabout in sa n ity d e f

e n se , a n d ju ro r w h o m a d e sta tem e n t ex c u se d ); St at e v. Mont ano , 136 A r i z. 605, 6 0 6 -07 , 6 6 7 P
. 2 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 1 -22 (19 8 3 ) (interests o f justi ce d id n o t dictat e e x cu sing en ti re juryp an el af

ter on e juro r m ad e p o tential lyp rejud ici al rem ark , w as e x c u s e d , an d co u rtD ur i ng t he r es t i tut i on h ea ri n g , t he vi ct i m ’ s couns el t es t i fi ed thathe “mayhave 5 al l ocat ed, atl eas ti n t hi s cas e, a l i t t l e bi tof m oneyt ow ar d t he vi cti m s ’ r epr es ent at i on t hat sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a llo c a ted to w a rd s th e p ro b a te f e e s.” B e c a u se th e trial c o u rt o rd e re d b o th th e p ro b a te a n d v ictim re p re se n tatio n f e e s a s re st itu tio n , itw a s n o t n e c e ss a ryf o r it to det er m i ne att hatt i m e w hi ch i t ems m ay have be en w r ongl yal l ocat ed. B utourdeci s i on now r equi r es t he court to m ak e that det er m i nat i on. W e ther efor e r emand t he ca s e r athert han s i m pl yvaca t i ng t he por t i on of t he or der aw ar di ng vi ct i m r epr es ent at i on fee s i n t he amount of $5, 028. 14 q u esti o n ed rem ainin g juro rs ab o u t im p arti ali ty ). A n d the t ri al co u rt instructed the e n ti re jury t o notdr aw any concl us i ons fr om anyt hi ng t hey had hear d. W e pre s um e t he j ur or s fol l ow ed th e c o u rt ’s in s tr u c tio n s . See Stat e v. McC ur dy , 216 A r i z. 567, ¶ 17, 169 P. 3d 931, 938 ( A pp. 2 0 0 7 ). W e f

in d n o a b u se o f

d isc re tio n in th e c o u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to g ra n t a m istria l. ¶25 A ccor di ngl y , Sl over ’ s convi ct i ons an d sen te nces ar e af fi r m ed butt he tr i al
cour t ’ s o rder of r es t i tut i on i s vaca t ed and the ca s e i s r emanded fora new r es t i tut i on det er m i nat i on cons i s t entw i t h t hi s deci s i on. 5

____________________________________ PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

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

____________________________________ G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge