Opinion ID: 2595501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Unduly gruesome photographs

Text: ¶ 30 Defendant made timely objections to the introduction of fourteen gruesome photographs as being unduly prejudicial. See State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983). Upon review of the photographs, we agree that several of them are cumulative of other photographs and that in several instances less gruesome photographs provide identical information. Some are arguably overly prejudicial in light of their slight probative value. All relevant facts were admitted by Defendant and amply corroborated by forensic experts. These photographs add very little to the presentation of the case, and the extremely gruesome nature of some militates against admission. We assume that the prosecutor and trial judge will utilize suitable discretion to ensure that unnecessary and otherwise overly prejudicial photographs are not introduced on retrial. E. Admission of Defendant's statements to police ¶ 31 Defendant makes two arguments questioning the admissibility of his taped confessions. First, he asserts that he was not brought before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of arrest, as required by Arizona law, thereby denying him his right to consult with counsel. Second, Defendant claims that because he was sleep deprived, one of his statements was involuntary. ¶ 32 Confessions are presumed to be involuntary, and the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary. See State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 164, 800 P.2d 1260, 1272 (1990). Absent clear and manifest error, the trial judge's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. See State v. Rivera, 152 Ariz. 507, 513, 733 P.2d 1090, 1096 (1987). ¶ 33 Upon arrest in Illinois on August 18, 1996, Defendant was given his Miranda rights, taken to the local police station, and processed. This included a four and one-half hour interview with Investigator Steven Shields. The interview began at about 9:00 p.m. and concluded at 1:30 a.m. This interrogation is not challenged. The following day, Defendant was interviewed by Investigator Shields and Detective Cooper of the Mohave County Sheriff's Office from 11:00 p.m. until a few hours into the morning. The timing of the interview was due to Cooper's late arrival from Arizona. Upon arrival in Arizona on September 2, 1996, Defendant was interviewed a third time, after which he was brought before a magistrate, fourteen days after his arrest. A motion to suppress the second and third interviews for failure to provide an attorney in a timely manner was filed on February 18, 1997. A suppression hearing was held to determine the voluntariness of Defendant's statements. The trial judge found no coercion by the interviewers and concluded that Defendant made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. ¶ 34 The purpose of the initial appearance is to advise the defendant of the charges against him and to inform him of his right to counsel and to remain silent. See State v. Van Dyke, 127 Ariz. 335, 621 P.2d 22 (1980). Defendant claims that by failing to bring him before a magistrate within the twenty-four hour period provided by Arizona law, or some other amount of time less than fourteen days, he was deprived of his right to counsel. Defendant's argument fails because the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply to Illinois, and there is no claim that the Illinois rules were violated. Defendant was brought before an Arizona magistrate within 24 hours of entering Arizona, thus complying with Arizona law. Defendant was read his Miranda rights before making any statements and several times during the course of his interviews. He also signed an explicit waiver of his right to counsel. Therefore, Defendant was not denied his right to counsel due to the failure to bring him before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest in Illinois. ¶ 35 Defendant also challenges the second interview on the basis that he was sleep deprived at the time of the interview. Twenty-one hours elapsed between the first and second interviews. Defendant provided no evidence that he was prevented from sleeping during this time period or that he informed the officers he was too tired to continue with the interview. Furthermore, he was provided food and drink as well as cigarette and bathroom breaks during the interview. See State v. Scott, 177 Ariz. 131, 865 P.2d 792 (1993) (failure to ask for food, medication or sleep, coupled with a lack of evidence that any request would not be granted, satisfies the State's burden to establish the voluntariness of a confession). There being no evidence indicating a lack of sleep, a request for more sleep, or that the police withheld sleep or other necessities to elicit a confession, we conclude that the State has met its burden of establishing the prima facie voluntariness of Defendant's statements.