Court Opinion

ID: 9788464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:54:45.659012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:07.793402
License: Public Domain

THOMAS C. KLEINSCHMIDT, Judge,
Dissenting.
¶ 42 I respectfully dissent. Counsel is entitled to argue all reasonable inferences from the evidence. See State v. Amayar-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 171, 800 P.2d 1260, 1279 (1990); State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 401, 783 P.2d 1184, 1193 (1989). As the majority agrees, the trial judge erred when she precluded the Defendant from arguing that the state had failed to prove that the victim was under fifteen years of age. An important component of that defense was the physical *507appearance of the victim as displayed on the videotape. She was very well developed, and the jury could have reasonably inferred from her appearance that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether she was under fifteen.
¶43 It is true that despite the court’s order, defense counsel did argue that the lack of documentary proof of the victim’s age undercut the state’s case, but he made only one oblique reference to the effect that the state should have produced more evidence of age when “one looks as [the victim] looks.” I do not, however, believe that it is possible to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that had defense counsel been given free rein to argue the victim’s age based on her appearance, that it would not have changed the outcome of the case.
¶ 44 If the defendant was entitled to argue that the state had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was under fifteen years of age he must necessarily have conceded that she was over fifteen. Such a concession would mandate an instruction on the offense of sexual conduct with a minor over the age of fifteen. It was reversible error not to give the requested instruction. I agree with the majority on all the other issues in the case.