Opinion ID: 2625842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Third-Party Culpability Evidence Excluded

Text: ¶ 63 A defendant may present evidence that a third party committed the crime for which he is charged. State v. Tankersley, 191 Ariz. 359, 369 ¶ 38, 956 P.2d 486, 496 (1998). The state moved in limine to exclude the following evidence relating to Fred Blakley, the defendant's cousin: 1) when Fred was thirteen to fifteen years old, he repeatedly molested Keri Williams, his six-or seven-year-old female cousin, for which he was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court; 2) Fred had telephoned Keri in 1999 and yelled at her; 3) Fred had a fight with Keri's brother; 4) Fred had a history of cruelty to animals; 5) after a newspaper article indicated that a cousin of the defendant may have caused Shelby's death, Keri began receiving hang-up phone calls; 6) Fred had been molested as a young boy; 7) Fred was beaten by his father; 8) Fred's father died of AIDS; and 9) Fred had engaged in self-mutilation. ¶ 64 Blakley did not file a written response to this motion. At argument in the trial court, he conceded that the evidence referred to in numbers 3 and 8 above was irrelevant and inadmissible. The judge determined that there was no reasonable basis to infer that Frederick Blakley had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the crime charged against Shelby. See Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c)(1)(B). He went on to find that the evidence was excludable. See Ariz. R. Evid. 403. ¶ 65 The state contends that the ruling was correct because 1) the court did not keep out all evidence pertaining to Fred Blakley-only that relating to his history of aberrant sexual behavior and cruelty to animals; and 2) even if all evidence had been excluded, the ruling would have been proper under State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 778 P.2d 602 (1988). ¶ 66 Blakley argues that the evidence in question was admissible under Rule 404(c), which states: In a criminal case in which a defendant is charged with having committed a sexual offense, ... evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted by the court if relevant to show that the defendant had a character trait giving rise to an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the offense charged. Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c). ¶ 67 Without deciding whether Rule 404(c) applies to someone other than a defendant, we find that the evidence was properly excluded. Recently, in State v. Gibson, 202 Ariz. 321, 44 P.3d 1001 (2002), we clarified the appropriate standard to be applied in determining admissibility of third-party culpability evidence. That standard is as set forth in Arizona Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. ¶ 68 Here, exclusion of the evidence concerning Fred Blakley was not an abuse of discretion. Blakley never attempted to show that Fred was present at the crime scene on the day of the murder. [3] The molestation committed by Fred was not similar to the sexual assault committed upon Shelby, and we fail to see how telephone calls between Fred and his previous victim around the time of Blakley's arrest were relevant.