Court Opinion

ID: 9386152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 17:02:41.919537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:58.180401
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                 AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

                                    IN THE
             ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
                                DIVISION ONE

                       STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

                                        v.

                    SCOTT DOUGLAS SAGE, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0196
                               FILED 4-11-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2019-005572-001
            The Honorable Laura M. Reckart, Judge (Retired)

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Robert W. Doyle
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Michael T. O’Toole
Counsel for Appellee
                               STATE v. SAGE
                             Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

G A S S, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1           Scott Sage appeals his conviction and sentence for one count
of negligent homicide. As part of this review, we ordered and received
supplemental briefing from Sage and the State on the jury instructions for
manslaughter and negligent homicide. Sage argues, and the State concedes,
the superior court’s negligent homicide instruction contained an error
because the instruction used “or” instead of “and” when defining the
crime’s two elements—causation and mental state. For the following
reasons, we affirm.

              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             This court views the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolves all reasonable inferences against
Sage. State v. Felix, 237 Ariz. 280, 283 ¶ 2 (App. 2015).

¶3            Sage approached an intersection driving more than 70 miles
per hour (mph) in a 40-mph zone. The victim approached the intersection
from the opposite direction and turned left in front of Sage. Sage crashed
into the victim, who later died as a result. The State charged Sage with one
count of manslaughter, which has a lesser included offense, negligent
homicide. The superior court held a six-day jury trial on the charges.

¶4           Without objection, the superior court instructed the jury:

      The crime of manslaughter requires proof that the defendant:

             1. Caused the death of [victim]; and

              2. Was aware of and showed conscious disregard and
      substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. The risk must be
      such that disregarding it was a gross deviation from the
      standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe
      in the situation.

                                      2
                              STATE v. SAGE
                            Decision of the Court

       ....

       The crime of negligent homicide requires proof of the
       following:

              1. The defendant caused the death of [victim]; or

               2. Failed to recognize a substantial and unjustifiable
       risk of causing the death of [victim].

       The distinction between manslaughter and negligent
       homicide is as follows:

       Manslaughter requires that the defendant must have been
       aware of a substantial risk and consciously disregarded the
       risk that his conduct would cause death.

       Negligent homicide only requires that the defendant failed to
       recognize the risk. (Emphasis added.)

¶5            During the trial, Sage disputed both causation and his mental
state. The jury acquitted Sage of manslaughter but found him guilty of
negligent homicide. The superior court imposed the minimum sentence of
4 years and awarded Sage 96 days of presentence incarceration credit.

¶6             This court has jurisdiction over Sage’s timely appeal under
article VI, section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 13-4031, and
-4033.A.1.

                                  ANALYSIS

¶7             Sage argues the superior court fundamentally erred when it
incorrectly instructed the jury on the elements of negligent homicide—
using “or” instead of “and” to connect the elements. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1102.A,
-105(10)(d). Sage contends the jury improperly could have found him guilty
of negligent homicide without finding both causation and mental state
(failing to recognize the risk).

¶8            Because Sage did not object to the negligent homicide
instruction at trial, this court limits its review to fundamental error. State v.
Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567 ¶ 19 (2005). To obtain relief on fundamental-
error review, Sage first must show trial error exists. State v. Escalante, 245
Ariz. 135, 142 ¶ 21 (2018). If error exists, Sage must then show the error
prejudiced him because it: (1) went to the foundation of the case; (2) took
away a right essential to the defense; or (3) was so egregious the defendant

                                       3
                              STATE v. SAGE
                            Decision of the Court

could not possibly have received a fair trial. Id. Sage and the State agree
using “or” instead of “and” in the negligent homicide instruction was error.
The issue then is whether Sage has shown resulting prejudice from the
error. See id.

¶9             “Prejudice under fundamental error ‘is a fact-intensive
inquiry and varies depending upon the type of error that occurred and the
facts of a particular case.’” State v. James, 231 Ariz. 490, 494 ¶ 15 (App. 2013)
(citation omitted). Sage must affirmatively “prove prejudice and may not
rely upon speculation to carry his burden.” State v. Dickinson, 233 Ariz. 527,
531 ¶ 13 (2013). Prejudice occurs if “a reasonable, properly instructed jury
could have reached a different result.” Id. This court presumes jurors follow
their instructions. Felix, 237 Ariz. at 285 ¶ 17. And this court may “consider
the parties’ theories, the evidence received at trial, and the parties’
arguments to the jury.” Dickinson, 233 Ariz. at 531 ¶ 13.

¶10           At trial, Sage argued: (1) the victim caused the accident
because the victim was intoxicated and failed to yield to Sage’s right-of-
way; and (2) Sage did not act recklessly, and a substantial and unjustifiable
risk did not exist because Sage had a green light and reasonable drivers
expect others to speed. In asserting that theory, he put at issue both
causation and his mental state in defending the charge.

¶11           Because the superior court connected the elements with “or,”
Sage argues the jury could have found him guilty of negligent homicide by
finding only one element—either causation or mental state. But the superior
court’s instructions also told the jury the only difference between
manslaughter and negligent homicide is a defendant’s mental state. Those
other instructions, thus, clarified the state’s burden to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt both causation and the applicable mental state for
manslaughter and negligent homicide.

¶12            The parties’ closing arguments emphasized causation is a
necessary element for both manslaughter and negligent homicide. Sage’s
counsel correctly told the jury in closing “[m]anslaughter requires proof
that the defendant caused the death of [victim] and was aware of and
showed conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.” The
State, in its rebuttal closing, echoed these elements presented by Sage’s
counsel, stating the only difference between manslaughter and negligent
homicide is: for manslaughter, “the defendant was aware of and
consciously disregarded th[e] risk.” Considering Sage’s defense theories,
the presumption jurors follow their instructions, and the closing
arguments—the jury would have understood causation is a necessary

                                       4
                              STATE v. SAGE
                            Decision of the Court

element for manslaughter and negligent homicide. See Dickinson, 233 Ariz.
at 531 ¶ 13.

¶13            Furthermore, no evidence shows the jurors would have
reached a different verdict if they had received the correct instruction, using
“and” not “or.” Given the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable juror
would have found Sage failed to recognize the risk of entering an
intersection more than 30 mph over the speed limit. Indeed, the State
presented computer data from Sage’s vehicle showing Sage pressed the
accelerator pedal “as far down as it would go” between 5 and 1.5 seconds
before the crash. He reached a maximum speed of 73 mph in a 40-mph zone
about 1.3 seconds before the crash. Not until one second before impact did
Sage try to brake, ultimately reducing his speed to 61 mph when the crash
occurred. The investigating detective testified Sage told officers “he
remembered stepping on the accelerator pedal hard” just before the crash.
A reasonable juror could only conclude driving more than 70 mph into an
intersection is a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

¶14            For these reasons, Sage has not met his burden of proving
prejudice. Any reasonable juror would have found Sage guilty of negligent
homicide if the superior court gave the correct instructions. See Dickinson,
233 Ariz. at 531 ¶ 13. Sage, thus, has not shown resulting prejudice from the
error in the jury instruction. See id.

                               CONCLUSION

¶15           We affirm.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA

                                         5