Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0045
02-19-2019
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. WILLIE MOORE, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix By Nicole Countryman Counsel for Appellant
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2014-005890-001
The Honorable Christopher A. Coury, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix
By Nicole Countryman
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Willie Moore appeals his convictions and sentences for second-degree murder and discharge of a firearm at a nonresidential structure. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Moore and a co-defendant shot and killed the victim, E.S., in a parking lot. A jury found Moore guilty of second-degree murder and discharge of a firearm at a structure; the court granted his motion for judgment of acquittal as to two other charged offenses, and the jury acquitted him of two additional charged offenses. The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which is 23 years.
¶3 Moore timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 13-4033(A).
DISCUSSION
¶4 Moore argues that the superior court erred by denying his motions for mistrial and for new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.
¶5 Several days into trial, a relative of the murder victim was outside of the courtroom during a trial recess and heard a juror say, "this is more extreme than I thought. By the look of everything, we know they're guilty." Moore moved for a mistrial based on juror misconduct. After questioning each juror individually, taking sworn testimony from the victim's relative, and after taking other measures to determine whether the alleged misconduct might have related to a different trial, the court denied Moore's motion. Moore argues the denial of his request for a mistrial and a new trial constitutes reversible error. We review this denial for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442, 447, ¶ 16 (2003).
¶6 Juror misconduct warrants a new trial if the defense demonstrates actual prejudice or facts from which prejudice may be fairly presumed. State v. Miller, 178 Ariz. 555, 558 (1994).
¶7 In response to individual questioning by the court, each juror denied that he or she had talked about the guilt of the defendant. Each juror also said he or she did not hear other jurors discussing the guilt of the defendant. The court expressly found the jurors' denials to be credible. Moreover, each juror affirmed that he or she was able to decide on a verdict fairly and impartially. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Moore's assertion of error.
¶8 Furthermore, the superior court determined—based on a review of courthouse surveillance video in conjunction with the victim's relative's testimony about the alleged misconduct—that the only juror from Moore's trial who could have made the statement was juror 14, who was then designated as an alternate and was not involved in deliberations. Moore argues that the court erred in reaching this conclusion because the initial report alleged that a male juror made the improper comment, whereas juror 14 is female. But the victim's relative testified that the speaker was female, and the court found his account credible. Thus, even assuming some type of misconduct, the record does not support Moore's assertion of prejudice, and the court did not abuse its discretion by denying his request for a new trial.
CONCLUSION
¶9 Moore's convictions and sentences are affirmed.