Title: State v. Cota
Citation: 408 P.2d 27, 99 Ariz. 236
Docket Number: 1559
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 1965

99 Ariz. 236 (1965) 408 P.2d 27 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Frank Carley COTA, Appellant. No. 1559. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Division. November 24, 1965. *237 Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., by Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert K. Corbin, Maricopa County Atty., for appellee. Chris T. Johnson, Phoenix, for appellant. BERNSTEIN, Justice. Appellant, hereinafter called defendant, appeals from a conviction on two counts of selling narcotics in violation of A.R.S. § 36-1002.02. The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the state's case and, at the same time, allowing the state to reopen its case to present additional evidence. Defendant contends the facts of the denial are important. Hence, we set them forth at length: The state then recalled witness McLean who testified that the two "papers" of heroin he had examined were of usable amounts. Defendant contends Rule 270, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., was definitively construed in State v. Cassady, 67 Ariz. 48, 190 P.2d 501 and that the Cassady decision controls the case before us. Rule 270 provides: In Cassady, defendant moved for a directed verdict as to three counts at the close of the state's case. The trial court indicated its inclination to grant the motion whereupon the state moved to reopen its case which was granted over objection. After the state rested for a second time, defendant renewed his motion which was granted as to the first count. It is clear that the trial court did not rule on the motion for a directed verdict when first made, but permitted the state to reopen its case and proceed further. We said: We went on to say that our rules of criminal procedure should be construed so as to promote justice, not thwart it. Refusing to permit the state to reopen would have been an abuse of discretion and an obstruction of justice. In the case before us, the trial judge erroneously supposed he was compelled to deny the motion to direct an acquittal by virtue of the single fact of granting the state's motion to reopen. In fact, the language he used suggests that he did not rule upon the motion to direct an acquittal, but thought that his ruling on the motion to reopen automatically, by operation of law, denied the former motion. Interpreting the language most favorable to defendant it can only be said that the judge simultaneously ruled upon both motions. Hence, it can be argued that granting the motion to reopen mooted the motion to direct an acquittal rendering any ruling upon the latter ineffectual. It would follow that Cassady controls and the conviction must be affirmed. Defense counsel contends the only way to avoid the mandatory language of Rule 270 is to reserve decision upon the motion to acquit until after the state has actually offered additional evidence. Defendant argues that if the court rules upon the motion and at that particular time there is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, the motion must be granted. We cannot agree that such a literal construction of Rule 270 is proper. The Rule must be modified by the principle recognizing *240 the trial court's discretion to allow either party to reopen its case. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in permitting the state to reopen its case. In State v. Moreno, 92 Ariz. 116, 374 P.2d 872, we held that a motion to reopen is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We went on to say that the trial court will not be considered to have abused its discretion unless the defendant has been prejudiced and that to constitute prejudice it must appear that the defendant was deprived of a substantial right. It is clear that defendant did not suffer prejudice in this case. Witness McLean's testimony as to whether the "papers" of heroin contained amounts sufficient to be used as a narcotic could not have surprised defense counsel. No continuance was requested to obtain witnesses to refute the additional testimony. Furthermore, nothing of significance occurred between the time the state first rested and its motion to reopen. The prosecuting attorney had simply overlooked the one or two additional questions put to McLean or thought them unnecessary until the trial court indicated its opinion on the matter. Defendant had no vested right in any neglect or omission on the part of the prosecuting attorney. State v. Klein, 195 Wash. 338, 80 P.2d 825. It does not constitute prejudicial error to permit the state to reopen its case where the defendant is not denied a full and fair opportunity to rebut the additional evidence. Williams v. State, Miss.Sup.Ct. (no state report) 26 So. 2d 64; Anglin v. State, 215 Ark. 49, 219 S.W.2d 421. Affirmed. LOCKWOOD, C.J., and UDALL, J., concurring.