Title: State v. Gandara
Citation: 111 Ariz. 80, 523 P.2d 511
Docket Number: 2890
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: June 13, 1974

111 Ariz. 80 (1974) 523 P.2d 511 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Hector Ramon GANDARA, Appellant. No. 2890. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. June 13, 1974. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by R. Wayne Ford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Edward N. Hendricksen, Yuma, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from jury verdicts and judgments of guilt to the crimes of transporting marijuana, § 36-1002.07 A.R.S. and offering to sell marijuana, § 36-1002.07 A.R.S., together with a sentence of not less than five nor more than six years upon each count to be served concurrently. We are asked to consider only one question on appeal and that is whether, at a joint trial, evidence that a codefendant had expressed his willingness to take a lie detector test was so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial. The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. On or about 30 October 1973, defendant and three others were arrested by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Yuma County Narcotics Task Force in the parking lot of Johnny's Silver Spur Bar in Yuma, Arizona. The arrests were made just after defendant's automobile *81 had arrived at the parking lot and the trunk opened in anticipation of a sale to the undercover agents. The trunk contained approximately 78 kilos of marijuana. Of the four people charged, one, Fernando Bonillas, did not appear at the trial. Another, George Gonzales, obtained a directed verdict at the close of the State's case. The third defendant, Juan M. Lara, went through the trial, but the jury could not reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. The defendant was found guilty as charged. During the examination of the codefendant Lara by his attorney, the following transpired: No objection was made by the State or by the defendant Gandara to this question. Defendant on appeal contends that this questioning was not only erroneous, but prejudicial to the defendant as well. This court has previously stated: And: The brief of the State, while admitting the general rule that evidence of a witness's refusal or willingness to take a lie detector test is error because of the prejudicial implications inherent therein, contends, and rightly we believe, that in the instant case there was no prejudice. First, the defendant himself did not contend that the codefendant Lara was involved. There appears to be, then, no conflict between the defendant and the codefendant which would make a belief in Lara's testimony damaging to Gandara. The defendant testified concerning his codefendant Juan Lara as follows on cross-examination by defendant Lara's attorney: Secondly, the evidence is overwhelming as to defendant's guilt in the matter. The marijuana was in his car and he was arrested at the scene. Agent George Cons testified concerning the defendant's "role": In addition, defendant's testimony as to why the marijuana was in his car did little to help his situation: And: The question concerning the codefendant's willingness to take a lie detector test was improper, State v. Valdez, supra; State v. Bowen, supra, but under the facts in this case we find no prejudice to the defendant. Judgment affirmed. HAYS, C.J., and LOCKWOOD, STRUCKMEYER and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.