STATE OF ARIZONA v. EDMUNDO RAMON ANDRADE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: 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 FILED BY CLERK MAY -6 2011 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDMUNDO RAMON ANDRADE, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0253 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY Cause No. S1100CR200602002 Honorable Boyd T. Johnson, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani and Joseph T. Maziarz Harriette P. Levitt Phoenix Attorneys for Appellee Tucson Attorney for Appellant V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. ¶1 After an eight-day jury trial, Edmundo Andrade was convicted of first- degree murder and sentenced to natural life in prison. On appeal, Andrade argues there was insufficient evidence to support the jury s guilty verdict. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶2 At trial, one of the state s witnesses, Edward J., testified that Andrade had driven him and David F. into the desert, purportedly for target shooting, but that after the three men got out of the car, Andrade had shot David in the stomach and then in the head, killing him. Other witnesses testified Andrade told them he had [taken] care of David because he did not trust him, because David was talking to other people about Andrade s planned criminal activities and would likely snitch . . . out those involved, and because David had tried to challenge his authority. The state also presented forensic evidence consistent with Edward s account of the killing and testimony that Andrade attempted to hide or destroy that evidence. ¶3 On appeal, Andrade argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him of murder because Edward and other witnesses had delayed in reporting evidence to the police and testified at trial pursuant to a grant of immunity. He also maintains another witness had a motive to implicate him in David s murder. He contends the account of the murder provided by these witnesses lacked credibility and was clearly the result of fabrication. ¶4 When considering claims of insufficient evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and reverse only if no substantial evidence supports the conviction. State v. Fimbres, 222 Ariz. 293, ¶ 4, 213 P.3d 1020, 1024 (App. 2009), quoting State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, ¶ 7, 104 P.3d 873, 875 (App. 2005). It is the jury s function not the function of this court to weigh all of the 2 evidence and to assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Reynolds, 108 Ariz. 541, 543, 503 P.2d 369, 371 (1972); State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228, ¶ 6, 99 P.3d 43, 46 (App. 2004). As long as jurors are made aware that a witness is testifying under a grant of immunity, they are in a position to judge [that witness s] credibility in the light of this information. State v. Holsinger, 115 Ariz. 89, 93, 563 P.2d 888, 892 (1977). ¶5 Here, the state elicited testimony identifying those witnesses who appeared pursuant to a grant of immunity, and Andrade does not claim he was denied a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses, impeach their credibility, or pursue his theory of the case. Although Andrade s argument may have been appropriate at trial, we reject his implicit suggestion on appeal that, as a matter of law, the jury was required to disbelieve the state s witnesses. The state s evidence was more than sufficient to support the jury s guilty verdict. Accordingly, we affirm Andrade s conviction and sentence. /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge 3
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.
