STATE v. GONZALEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JESSE MATA GONZALEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/02/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 11-0069 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-100544-001 DT The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge (Retired) AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Division Katia Mehu, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Paul J. Prato, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T I M M E R, Presiding Judge ¶1 Jesse resulting Mata sentence aggravated robbery. Gonzalez imposed appeals after a his jury conviction found him and guilty of For the reasons that follow, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Late one evening in early January 2010, the victim, then a pizza delivery driver, received a delivery order for an address near 24th Street and McDowell in Phoenix. Gonzalez and two the other Hispanic men were waiting address when the victim arrived. outside of delivery When she exited her car, the three men approached, blocked her in against the car, and without paying for the order demanded their change. When the victim refused to give them money, Gonzalez held her against the car while another man punched her repeatedly. Gonzalez and one other man then rifled through the victim s car while the third man pinned the victim to the ground and continued to beat her. ¶3 The victim eventually managed to escape and found a police officer at a nearby restaurant. description of each of the three She gave the police a attackers, characterizing Gonzalez as a short-haired Hispanic male with a tattoo on his neck, wearing dark jeans and a white hooded sweatshirt partially covered by a dark shirt or jacket. On the basis of this description, officers detained Gonzalez a few blocks north of the crime scene a short time later. 2 ¶4 Phoenix Police Officer Timothy Lynch transported the victim for a one-on-one identification of Gonzalez. Immediately upon seeing Gonzalez, the victim stated she was 100 percent sure he was one of her attackers. clothing and the characteristics tattoo of his She explained she recognized his on his neck posture. The as well police as then certain arrested Gonzalez and the State charged him with aggravated robbery. ¶5 Before trial, Gonzalez moved to preclude the victim s pretrial identification, claiming it was unduly suggestive and unreliable. the During the hearing on the motion, the victim asked prosecutor about a never-before-mentioned second identification she said she made on the night of the robbery. The victim Gonzalez, which claimed the she handcuffs. police that, after transported identified two other she her positively to men, a who second were identified line-up led away at in No police report reflected a second identification and no police officer involved recalled a second line-up, much less a second positive identification and arrest. The victim had not previously mentioned a second line-up to the prosecutor, and the victim could not recall officers about the matter. speaking with investigating After hearing testimony from two officers and the victim including her description of a second line-up the finding that court although denied Gonzalez s suggestive, 3 the motion to victim s preclude, one-on-one identification of him bore sufficient indicia of reliability to permit evidence of the identification at trial. ¶6 At trial, each police officer denied knowing about the second line-up described by the victim. When the victim took the stand, she described both her pretrial identification of Gonzalez and her recollection of the second line-up. At the close of the State s case, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ( Rule ) 20, arguing that the fundamental inconsistency between the victim s testimony and that of police officers rendered her testimony incredible insufficient to and her establish identification identity. The of court Gonzalez denied the motion. ¶7 The jury found Gonzalez guilty as charged and, after a separate aggravation trial, aggravating factors. found the State had proved two After the court imposed sentence, this timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION ¶8 Gonzalez s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his Rule 20 motion. He contends the State presented insufficient evidence linking him to the crime because the victim s testimony, 4 which is the only evidence linking Gonzalez to the crime, is insufficient to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 ¶9 We review the trial court s denial of a Rule 20 motion de novo viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15, 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011); State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 603, 944 P.2d 1204, 1217 (1997). A judgment of acquittal under Rule 20 is appropriate only if no substantial evidence supports a conviction. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20; State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990). Substantial evidence must be more than a mere scintilla of proof, Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 67, 796 P.2d at 869, that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion reasonable doubt. 51, 53 (1980). of [the] defendant s guilt beyond a State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, 610 P.2d Both direct and circumstantial evidence are relevant to the inquiry, and either or both may constitute the requisite substantial evidence. State v. Blevins, 128 Ariz. 64, 67, 623 P.2d 853, 856 (App. 1981); West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16, 250 P.3d at 1191. ¶10 Gonzalez argues that because the victim recounted an uncorroborated second line-up, her 1 testimony as a whole was Gonzalez does not challenge the court s determination that the victim s pretrial identification was sufficiently reliable to be admissible at trial. 5 entirely guilty incredible verdict as and a therefore matter of insufficient law. But a to support conflict in a the evidence even one as stark as this does not preclude a jury finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There may exist substantial evidence precluding a Rule 20 judgment of acquittal even in the face of conflicting testimony from which reasonable people could draw different conclusions. Ariz. App. 1, 2, 473 P.2d 803, 804 (1970). State v. Mercer, 13 And [n]o rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury. State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357, ¶ 27, 174 P.3d 265, 269 (2007) (citation omitted); see also State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442, 455, ¶ 55, 65 P.3d 90, 103 (2003). ¶11 Cross-examination gave Gonzalez every opportunity to impeach the victim s credibility and highlight reasons for the jury to disbelieve her identification. that opportunity to impeach her Indeed, the defense took extensively with prior inconsistent statements, prior drug use, and prior convictions, in addition to the lack of other evidence regarding a second line-up. The jury was well positioned to assess the victim s credibility in light of the officers contrasting testimony. ¶12 the Additionally, defense counsel argued at length against victim s credibility in 6 closing, highlighting inconsistencies in her testimony and spotlighting for the jury the lack of corroboration for the victim s story of a second line-up. and The jury was properly instructed on reasonable doubt witness credibility. The jury apparently found [the victim] credible despite counsel s meticulous impeachment and argument. ¶13 See Hall, 204 Ariz. at 455, ¶ 55, 65 P.3d at 103. We do not reweigh the evidence on review. Ariz. at 603, 944 P.2d at 1217. Lee, 189 The victim squarely testified Gonzalez was one of the men who attacked her, and we cannot now usurp the role regarding a of the second fact-finder line-up to conclude renders her her testimony identification insufficient to support a guilty verdict. CONCLUSION ¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Gonzalez s conviction and sentence. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Patricia A. Orozco, Judge /s/ Diane M. Johnsen, Judge 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
