Opinion ID: 4237534
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Statements about the traffic stop search

Text: ¶112 Hulsey claims that the following excerpt from the prosecutor’s closing improperly commented on his refusal to consent to the search. And so the police officer says you want me to search you -- I want to search you. We agree he says no. Clearly, he’s in control of the situation. He wasn’t scared, wasn’t going to say 34 STATE V. HULSEY Opinion of the Court no, didn’t have to say no. So it wasn’t a situation where he panicked or anything like that, no. When he asked may I search you, very calmly he said no, uh-huh. I am not going to let you do that. So that’s a calm individual. It’s not somebody who is so high on drugs, doesn’t know what’s going on. He knows what’s going on. ¶113 We need not decide whether the phrase “didn’t have to say no” was improper because it was not argued as evidence of guilt. This discussion solely addressed Hulsey’s demeanor at the traffic stop. The prosecutor made no comment on his invocation of his Fourth Amendment rights as evidence of guilt. Cf. State v. Stevens, 228 Ariz. 411, 414–15 ¶¶ 8–9 (App. 2012) (prosecutor referring to defendant’s refusal of search as a result of concern about being arrested and because defendant had something to hide). The prosecutor argued only that the refusal implied that Hulsey was “calm” and “in control of the situation,” and not “scared” or “panicked.” Hulsey was thus not prejudiced by the statement.