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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

EVERARDO PONCE RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0158 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-101981-001

The Honorable Erin Otis, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Gracynthia Claw

Counsel for Appellee

The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale

By Christopher Stavris

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 7-26-18
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Everado Ponce Rodriguez appeals his convictions for 

aggravated assault and preventing the use of a telephone during an 

emergency. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In January 2016, the victim (Rodriguez’s girlfriend) called 9-

1-1 to report that Rodriguez had threatened her with a knife. The victim 

told police officers and a forensic nurse examiner that Rodriguez held a 

knife against her throat, then threw her on a bed and choked her until she 

fainted.

¶3 The State charged Rodriguez with criminal damage, 

preventing the use of a telephone in an emergency, and two counts of 

aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Rodriguez was convicted of

preventing the use of a telephone in an emergency, and of one count of 

aggravated assault. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of probation for 

the two convictions. He timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶4 Rodriguez argues that the superior court improperly 

precluded him from presenting evidence of the victim’s immigration status.

He asserts error under the Due Process and Confrontation Clauses of the 

United States Constitution, arguing that the court unreasonably limited his 

ability to cross-examine the victim regarding her “motive and hope for 

reward for her coming to court and testifying.”

¶5 We review the superior court’s ruling on the admissibility of 

evidence for an abuse of discretion, but we review de novo constitutional 

challenges to the admissibility of evidence. State v. Bennett, 216 Ariz. 15, 17, 

¶ 4 (App. 2007). The superior court retains broad discretion to impose 

reasonable limits on cross-examination to, inter alia, prevent confusion of 
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

the issues, unfair prejudice, misleading the jury, or interrogation that is only 

marginally relevant. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974); State v. 

Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133, 153, ¶ 62 (2002), superseded by rule on other grounds as 

stated in State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 303, ¶ 11, n.1 (2016); State v. 

Fleming, 117 Ariz. 122, 125 (1977) (“The right [of confrontation] does not 

confer . . . a license to run at large in cross-examination.”); State v. BuccheriBianca, 233 Ariz. 324, 328, ¶ 8 (App. 2013); State v. Abdi, 226 Ariz. 361, 367, 

¶ 27 (App. 2011).

¶6 Before trial, Rodriguez filed a discovery request seeking 

information about the victim’s immigration status—specifically whether 

she was a legal immigrant—and whether she had sought a U-Visa,1 arguing 

that this information would show the victim’s motive, bias, or interest.

¶7 On the first day of trial, the court considered evidence and 

argument regarding Rodriguez’s discovery request. The State avowed that 

it had not provided the victim with a U-Visa application and that, based on 

information it had received from the Glendale Police Department (the 

arresting agency) and the United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement Unit (“ICE”), there were no prior or pending U-Visa 

applications submitted by or on behalf of the victim. Rodriguez’s counsel 

in turn asserted that the victim had been in the country illegally, and that 

after the case began and the charges were filed, the victim had been able to 

work and had obtained an Arizona state identification card.

¶8 The superior court directed the State to ask the victim about 

her immigration status and how she was able to obtain a state identification 

card and work authorization. The next day, the court conducted an 

informal discussion off the record and noted that the victim had obtained a 

work visa four months after the crime and an Arizona identification card a 

month later. The court further noted that ICE had not confirmed whether 

the victim had received a U-Visa, and that the victim had received help 

obtaining the identification card and work documentation from a private 

entity not associated with the State. The State accordingly argued that the 

victim’s immigration status should be precluded because there was not a 

good-faith basis either to believe the victim had obtained a U-Visa or that 

the State had helped her in trying to obtain one, or that the victim had 

otherwise received assistance as a result of Rodriguez’s prosecution.

 

1 A U-Visa is a nonimmigrant visa that may be issued to a foreign 

citizen who, inter alia, is a victim of, and aids in the prosecution of, certain 

crimes. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(U)(i).
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 The superior court denied Rodriguez’s discovery request and 

precluded information about the victim’s immigration status, finding it 

irrelevant because there was no indication that the State had assisted or 

intended to assist the victim with her immigration status.

¶10 At trial, the victim backtracked from her previous statements 

to law enforcement. She testified that she thought Rodriguez was 

“playing” with her at the time of the incident, even when he was squeezing 

her neck, and she indicated that she no longer wanted Rodriguez to be 

prosecuted. The victim asserted that she did not recall details of what had 

happened or the statements she had made to the detective and the forensic 

nurse, but after being confronted with reports of her conversations with 

them, she acknowledged her previous statements detailing the assault.

¶11 During cross-examination, when the victim was asked why 

she came to court, she stated, “Because I was trying to fix my status and I 

didn’t want to have any problems with . . . [the police]. They told me I 

couldn’t have any warrants or anything like that because I was trying to 

legalize my status and that would harm me.” The State asked the court to 

strike the last portion of her statement from the record, and the court agreed 

to do so.

¶12 The constitutional rights of due process and confrontation 

guarantee a criminal defendant a “meaningful opportunity to present a 

complete defense.” Abdi, 226 Ariz. at 367, ¶ 27 (citing Crane v. Kentucky, 476 

U.S. 683, 690 (1986)). Vital to these rights is the right to cross-examine 

witnesses regarding their motive and bias and to test the “believability of a 

witness and the truth of his testimony.” Davis, 415 U.S. at 315–18. These 

rights are not violated, however, where “evidence has been properly 

excluded.” See State v. Davis, 205 Ariz. 174, 179, ¶ 33 (App. 2002); see also 

Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 328, ¶ 11; State v. Oliver, 158 Ariz. 22, 30 (1988).

¶13 Here, the victim’s immigration status prior to the crime—

including whether she had applied for a visa—was unknown, and there 

was no evidence that the State had assisted her in obtaining a visa, or that 

such a visa was promised in exchange for an agreement to testify against 

Rodriguez. Without more, the victim’s immigration status was collateral 

and irrelevant. See Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 327–28, ¶¶ 7–11 (holding 

that evidence of a victim obtaining a U-Visa was properly excluded as 

collateral because the State had not assisted her in obtaining the U-Visa).

¶14 Rodriguez asserts that the victim’s testimony regarding why 

she responded to the subpoena to testify—in which she stated that she 
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

5

appeared only because not responding might adversely affect her legal 

status—demonstrated her bias and motive to testify. But fear of a particular 

consequence for ignoring a subpoena is not unusual regardless of the 

victim’s immigration status. Without connecting the victim’s immigration 

status to the motivation for or the substance of her testimony, the victim’s 

immigration status was irrelevant. See Abdi, 226 Ariz. at 366–67, ¶¶ 22–25.

Because there is no evidence the State provided assistance in obtaining a UVisa for the victim in exchange for her testimony against Rodriguez, the 

victim’s immigration status was collateral to the issues before the jury, and 

the superior court properly limited evidence of her immigration status. See 

Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 327–28, ¶¶ 7–11; see also Abdi, 226 Ariz. at 366–

67, ¶¶ 22–25.

¶15 Furthermore, the nature of the victim’s testimony belied any 

suggestion that she had agreed to testify in any particular way in exchange 

for assistance from the State. In fact, notwithstanding her initial statements 

to police describing the crime, the victim testified that Rodriguez had not 

assaulted her and that she opposed prosecution. When confronted with her 

prior statements, she equivocated regarding whether Rodriguez had 

threatened her and whether he was holding a knife during the incident. 

Accordingly, for cross-examination purposes, evidence of the victim’s 

immigration status was, at best, only relevant to establish why she agreed 

to appear at trial, but was not significant for purposes of “confronting” the 

substance of her trial testimony. And for the same reason, even if the victim 

had in fact pursued a U-Visa (unbeknownst to the prosecutor), to the extent 

evidence of the U-Visa should have been admitted in evidence, any 

resulting error from its omission would have been harmless. Accordingly, 

Rodriguez has not established reversible error.

CONCLUSION

¶16 For the forgoing reasons, we affirm.