Opinion ID: 867374
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged comment on Garza's failure to testify.

Text: ¶ 53 Garza accuses the State of improperly commenting on his failure to testify. Because Garza did not object below, we review for fundamental error. State v. Decello, 113 Ariz. 255, 258, 550 P.2d 633, 636 (1976). ¶ 54 Garza focuses on two comments in the penalty phase closing arguments. The first described the night in question and the terror that must have been experienced by the victims. In contrast, the prosecutor claimed, Ruben Garza . . . didn't care. He cared only about himself. He didn't call 911. This statement did not relate to Garza's failure to testify at trial, but rather to the events of December 1, 1999, and Garza's inaction on that date. ¶ 55 The second comment came during the State's discussion of the defense theory that Larry committed the murders: [Y]ou've listened to the interview of Ruben Garza. We've played that interview for you. If it was Larry Franco, why didn't he tell us that? In fact, he had the opportunity to tell us that back on December 2nd, 1999, while the detectives were investigating this case. . . . Why didn't the defendant tell us that back in December when at the moment of truth is so critical, when we had the chance to further investigate[?] Again, this statement was aimed at Garza's statements to the police, not at his failure to testify at trial. See State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, 13 ¶ 33, 66 P.3d 50, 56 (2003) (upholding, against Fifth Amendment attack, comments that did not naturally and necessarily . . . comment on the defendant's failure to testify).