Court Opinion

ID: 9412767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 16:04:41.102455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:25.345421
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 ZION ZACHARY KAUFFMAN, Appellant.

                              No. 1 CA-CR 22-0362
                                FILED 8-1-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                         No. S8015CR202001264
            The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Jr., Judge, Pro Tempore

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Andrew Reilly
Counsel for Appellee

Carr Law Office PLLC, Kingman
By Sandra Carr
Counsel for Appellant 1

Zion Zachary Kauffman, Florence
Appellant

1 Appearing as advisory counsel to Zion Zachary Kauffman, Kingman, Pro

Per.
                           STATE v. KAUFFMAN
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

J A C O B S , Judge:

¶1           Zion Zachary Kauffman appeals from his convictions and
sentences for two counts of aggravated assault and one count of child
abuse. We affirm.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2           In 2020, Kauffman resided on two-and-one-half acres of
undeveloped rural land he owned in Golden Valley, Mohave County.
Kauffman camped there with his ex-wife; another woman (Mother); and 8-
month-old Z, who was Mother’s and Kauffman’s child.

¶3             Mother took Z to an emergency room on November 3, 2020,
for a head injury. Imaging showed Z had been shot in the head with a
pellet-like object. Doctors intubated Z, relieved the pressure, and flew Z to
a Las Vegas-area trauma hospital for treatment. At the hospital, Mother
told police about the others at the campsite.

¶4            Kauffman at first claimed not to have shot Z. Kauffman told
police in a phone interview that he was collecting firewood with Mother
and heard what sounded like air soft rifle shots fired. In his original
narrative, as Mother grabbed Z, Kauffman grabbed Z’s chair, and they went
back to the campsite where he noticed Z’s injury.

¶5            Based on the information from Mother and Kauffman, police
obtained and executed a search warrant. Searching the vehicles and tents
at Kauffman’s campsite, the police located a pellet gun rifle and pellets
under clothes in the trunk of a car, and a car seat and small dress in the tent,
both saturated with blood. There was a bullet hole in the top canopy of the
car seat. The police seized Kauffman’s cell phone. A forensic examination
of the phone revealed that Kauffman sent a text the morning after Z was
shot saying Z “hit [their] head on a rock in a tent,” to which the recipient
responded, “I thought [Z] got hit by a BB from someone shooting out there.”

                                       2
                         STATE v. KAUFFMAN
                          Decision of the Court

Kauffman replied, “I was already drunk and asleep when everything
happened, so I don’t know exactly what happened.”

¶6            Two police officers interviewed Kauffman in a patrol car at
his campsite, recorded by body camera, during which Kauffman admitted
he may have accidentally shot Z while shooting quail. A grand jury
indicted Kauffman for aggravated assault, child abuse, and tampering with
evidence.

¶7            Kauffman moved to suppress the air rifle pellets, copper-
coated steel BBs, an iPad, and two cell phones because the vehicles from
which the items came were not included in the warrant or located on
Kauffman’s property. Kauffman also moved to suppress his statements to
police, and the timeline and sequence of events depicted in the body camera
recording of his interview, relying on a specific physical/sexual threat he
alleged a different officer made toward Kauffman’s ex-wife before the
interview. The State argued the vehicle search was conducted in good faith,
that Kauffman voluntarily spoke to police after waiving his Miranda rights
and that video showed the interviewing officer made no promises or
threats.

¶8             Six law enforcement witnesses and Kauffman testified at the
evidentiary hearing on Kauffman’s motions to suppress. The officers
testified they neither made the alleged threat against Kauffman’s ex-wife,
nor heard anyone else make the threat. Kauffman testified he talked to
police on several occasions on the day they executed the search warrant,
during which an officer threatened Kauffman’s ex-wife. He also testified
that during his later police interview in the patrol car with two different
officers, one officer talked about taking all three of them to jail for
something that may have been an accident, which Kauffman understood as
a promise to not take Kauffman to jail if he said the shooting was an
accident. The State argued the body camera video showed Kauffman
mentioning an accident in his police interview before the officer made the
statement Kauffman contended was a promise of leniency.

¶9           The court declined to suppress Kauffman’s statements. It
found them all voluntary because “the officers’ testimony [was] more
credible than [Kauffman’s] testimony,” every officer testified that no one
made the alleged threat, the threat was not made during the investigation,
and the interviewing officer did not cause Kauffman to make involuntary
statements. The court acknowledged that the officer used profanity and
had a harsh interview technique and tone, but found Kauffman’s
statements voluntary. The court noted Kauffman first raised the possibility

                                    3
                           STATE v. KAUFFMAN
                            Decision of the Court

of an accident and because the entire interaction was on the body camera
video, the court could see Kauffman’s reactions and saw no sign that
Kauffman’s will was overborne.

¶10            The court also denied Kauffman’s motion to suppress
evidence from vehicles outside the warrant’s geographic scope. While the
two cars the officers searched were not on Kauffman’s property, the area
was remote and lacked barriers delineating property lines, and there
appeared to be only two vehicles at Kauffman’s campsite. Based on the
officers’ testimony and evidence, the court found the officers’ belief that the
two vehicles were on Kauffman’s property “objectively reasonable.”
Because the officers believed in good faith that the vehicles were on
Kauffman’s property when searched, the court upheld the search.

¶11           During a six-day trial, Kauffman’s counsel told the jury in
opening statements that the officers’ threats and promises are “all on Axon”
body camera video. Kauffman testified about collecting firewood and
hearing gunshots, and while admitting he saw that Z had been shot when
back at camp, he likewise acknowledged never calling 911. He explained
that instead, he called a cab so Mother and Z could go to a hospital while
he remained at the camp drinking alcohol. Kauffman also testified he lied
under duress to police when he said he may have accidentally shot Z. The
jury asked Kauffman whether he was Mirandized and he testified that he
did not recall being so advised. Kauffman testified about the statement by
one officer to his ex-wife that Kauffman considered a threat, and the
statement during his interview in the patrol car that he considered a
promise of leniency, which he asserted caused him to falsely admit to
possibly accidentally shooting Z.

¶12          Officer testimony established that Kauffman was read and
waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily spoke to police during the
interview. The State showed the body-camera recording of the interview
to the jury.

¶13           The evidence regarding Z’s ongoing medical treatment by six
different specialists established that Z, who was otherwise healthy before
being shot, now has cerebral palsy and other movement disorders,
impaired vision, and lifelong increased risk for seizures and other
developmental issues as a result of the incident.

                                      4
                          STATE v. KAUFFMAN
                           Decision of the Court

¶14           After the State rested, Kauffman moved for a directed verdict
under Rule 20 rearguing voluntariness that the court denied. The court
explained it had already ruled on voluntariness, and had seen nothing on
the video or about Kauffman’s reaction that showed his will was overborne,
that he was giving false statements, or that his statements were involuntary
notwithstanding the officer’s aggressive interview technique. The court
stated that the jury would be instructed it could consider a statement
involuntary and disregard it.

¶15          Kauffman’s counsel argued voluntariness vigorously in
closing. The jury found Kauffman guilty of two counts of aggravated
assault and one count of child abuse, but found him not guilty of tampering
with evidence.

¶16           Kauffman filed two post-trial motions, a motion for acquittal
on the child abuse count and a motion for new trial, reasserting his
involuntariness arguments. The court denied the motion for new trial,
explaining it had already ruled on the issues it raised. The court had held
a voluntariness hearing and viewed the body camera recording repeatedly.
While the interrogating officer’s technique was harsh, calling Kauffman a
“piece of shit,” the court explained Kauffman handled the situation well,
such that nothing made his statements involuntary.

¶17           The court sentenced Kauffman concurrently to presumptive
terms of 7.5 years imprisonment for Counts 1 and 2, aggravated assault, and
a maximum of 24 years for Count 3, child abuse.

¶18           Kauffman timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under
Article VI, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12–
120.21(A)(1), 13–4031, and 13–4033(A).

                              DISCUSSION

¶19            On appeal, Kauffman argues the arresting officers violated his
rights and complains of a course of “illegal and unlawful and wrong things
the officers and court has [sic] done”:

      The officer did not look to see where is 2.5 Ars. (sic) [acres]
      started nor ended, they left evidence behind, they used
      excessive force, the keep turning on and off the body cam, the
      officers was prejudice [sic] against [Kauffman] as a jew, they
      violated all of his amendments and rights, violated his ADA
      law, search and seizure without a search warrant violated his
      sovereignty and the judge should have dismissed the case….

                                     5
                           STATE v. KAUFFMAN
                            Decision of the Court

He also says: “I am being hurt [in the exercise of] my . . . rights, [my]
sovereignty has been violated, my due process, double jeopardy, not
getting a fair trial/hearing, false arrest, imprisonment, illegal and unlawful
search and seizure,” “not having a warrant,” “illegal sentence,”
“suppression of evidence,” “threat to my family,” “excessive force.” In a
supplemental filing, Kauffman references his opening brief, “case law
3:13CR72, 13-7120,” and “State v. Bolt.”

¶20           The State maintains that Kauffman waived his arguments by
failing to explain them or support them with legal authority, relying on
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.10(a)(7), and State v. Bolton, 182
Ariz. 290, 298 (1995), and State v. Felkins, 156 Ariz. 37, 38 n.1 (App. 1988).
The State further argues sufficient evidence supports the convictions, the
police properly applied for and obtained a warrant, and the superior court
correctly held the officers acted in good faith in searching the vehicles.
Kauffman’s reply does not address the State’s arguments or further
elaborate his own.

¶21            The core of Kauffman’s position is his objection to the
superior court’s denial of his motions to suppress the searches and the
voluntariness of his admission to police. “We review the denial of a motion
to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion, considering the facts in the
light most favorable to sustaining the ruling.” State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz.
299, 302 ¶ 9 (2016) (citing State v. Wilson, 237 Ariz. 296, 298 ¶ 7 (2015)). We
defer to the superior court’s determinations of the officers’ credibility “and
the reasonableness of the inferences they drew,” but consider the superior
court’s legal decisions de novo. State v. Mendoza–Ruiz, 225 Ariz. 473, 475 ¶ 6
(App. 2010); see State v. Cordova, 198 Ariz. 242, 243–44 ¶¶ 4–5 (App. 1999)
(stating we do not reverse convictions or findings if they are supported by
substantial evidence). We will affirm the superior court’s decision if it is
legally correct for any reason. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. at 310 ¶ 35 (citing State
v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, 508 ¶ 7 (2015)).

¶22           Here, the search warrant was the subject of a suppression
hearing at which six officers testified. Kauffman does not address the
superior court’s resolution of this issue or point to anything that
undermines the court’s findings of objective good faith in searching his
vehicle. See Mendoza–Ruiz, 225 Ariz. at 475 ¶ 6; State v. Baggett, 232 Ariz.
424, 426 ¶ 7 (App. 2013). Kauffman shows no error of law or abuse of
discretion, and we are required to view the facts in the light most favorable
to upholding the court’s ruling. See Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. at 302 ¶ 9.

                                      6
                           STATE v. KAUFFMAN
                            Decision of the Court

¶23            Kauffman also makes a number of references in his opening
brief to the threat he alleges coerced his concession that he might have shot
Z, but does not develop a theory of error in his brief for us to consider. The
alleged threat was substantially discussed at trial and was the subject of
multiple rulings in the superior court. Similarly, Kauffman does not
develop a claim of error through his assertion that “they keep turning on
and off the bodycam.” He does not explain how switching the bodycam on
and off related to the threat he alleges or the voluntariness of his statements.
These undeveloped contentions either fail for lack of necessary specificity
or are waived. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.10(a)(7) (requiring “supporting
reasons for each contention,” “citations of legal authorities and appropriate
references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies”);
Bolton, 182 Ariz. at 298 (determining claim on appeal was waived because
of insufficient argument). Though Kauffman cites State v. Bolt, a case
applying the exclusionary rule, Bolt discusses exigent circumstances and
the federal independent source exception, and is not relevant to the facts
and issue of objective good faith here. See 142 Ariz. 260, 263–69 (1984).

¶24            To the extent Kauffman contends there was insufficient
evidence to support the jury’s verdict because of his allegations involving a
threat, that issue was for the jury to resolve. See State v. Williams, 209 Ariz.
228, 231 ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (explaining that jury is tasked with “weigh[ing] the
evidence and determin[ing] the credibility of the witnesses.”); accord State
v. Cid, 181 Ariz. 496, 500 (App. 1995) (discussing that jury’s function is to
weigh evidence and determine credibility).

¶25            Kauffman testified about the threat. The jury heard about the
aggressive interview, saw the recording, and heard testimony from an
officer about the body cam being on and off. Multiple officers testified they
did not make the alleged threat and that Kauffman had not complained
about a threat to any of them. The jury was instructed that “[i]n deciding
the facts of this case, you should consider what testimony to accept, and
what to reject,” and “[y]ou may accept everything a witness says, or part of
it, or none of it.” See State v. Allen, 253 Ariz. 306, 358 ¶ 193 (2022). We
presume the jury follows the court’s instructions. State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz.
560, 569 ¶ 40 (2010). The jury was free to judge the credibility of the
evidence and accept or reject the officers’ and Kauffman’s testimony in
whole or in part and “we will not second-guess” the jury’s credibility
determination, Cid, 181 Ariz. at 501.

                                       7
                        STATE v. KAUFFMAN
                         Decision of the Court

                            CONCLUSION

¶26          Because Kauffman has not shown an error of law or that the
court abused its discretion, we affirm his convictions and sentences.

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

                                     8