State v. Vanderschuit
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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DELL RAINBOW VANDERSCHUIT, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/21/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CR 09-0822 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2008-009278-001 DT The Honorable Steven K. Holding, Commissioner AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals Section/ Capital Litigation Section and Jeffrey L. Sparks, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Karen M. Noble, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant H A L L, Judge Phoenix Phoenix ¶1 Dell Rainbow Vanderschuit (Defendant) appeals his conviction of one count of attempted child prostitution, a class two felony and dangerous crime against children, and sentence of ten years of imprisonment. He contends that the trial court erred by denying his motions for a mistrial and new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 of In December 2008, Defendant was indicted on one count attempted child children. At testified that prostitution, trial, she Phoenix had a dangerous Police initiated Officer three crime against Amanda Herman telephone calls to Defendant while posing as a caretaker to a fictional ten or eleven year old female. Officer Herman and Defendant discussed Defendant paying for the child to engage in sexual acts with him. The telephone calls were recorded and subsequently played for the jury during the trial. At the conclusion of Officer Herman s testimony, a juror asked the court if the transcripts or the phone calls [were] available for jury review[.] Commissioner Steven Holding responded in open court: What is available for the jury is your notes, as well as all the evidence that has been admitted at this point in time. We have all three of the phone calls in evidence on CD form. Should you wish to review those recording devices, playing devices will be provided which will be monitored by my staff. They will be replayed, should you wish. The staff cannot talk to you during those replaying of any of the phone 2 calls and then the device itself and the CD will then be preserved at the clerk s desk. ¶3 The court instructed the jury before they deliberated that [i]n their opening statements and closing arguments, the lawyers have talked to you about the law and the evidence. the lawyers said is not evidence, but understand the law and the evidence. three telephone calls during their it may help you deliberation. Prior It s come to my attention that the tape recordings that [the jury was] listening to, they were listening to on the State s laptop, and also, the State s closing argument [was] on that laptop. I know that [court staff] went in and turned it off for them and then left, but [the jury] had [the laptop] there by themselves. So I think that, although I m saying that that gives the appearance of unfairness, if they had access to [the State s] PowerPoint presentation of her closing argument. The State responded: With respect to the laptop computer, [Defendant s attorney and Defendant] were present when this was being discussed and I asked about the computer. There was discussion about me showing it, Theo had to work with it. So this is not something that just recently came to our attention. I was very candid in open court about providing a laptop or something. And there was no objection as to that, at the time. ¶5 Defendant s attorney replied: Actually, there was an objection. I requested if the jury wanted to hear the tape, that we all be brought back in and listen to the tapes in the courtroom. And then they could return and deliberate. And I did make that objection, Your Honor. I did make an objection 3 to The jurors reviewed the announcing their verdict, Defendant s attorney stated: ¶4 What to And I to them listening to that by themselves.[1] certainly didn t know that it was going to be on the same laptop that had her closing argument. I would have objected. I m not saying she tried to hide it from me, but I didn t know it was going to be in there with them, so I would have objected to that. And I m objecting to that to preserve my record on that issue and would ask for a mistrial based on the fact that I don t think that he has received a fair trial in that respect. ¶6 The court denied Defendant s request for a mistrial. The jury found Defendant guilty of attempted child prostitution, a dangerous crime against children. Following the verdict, Defendant moved for a new trial, arguing, in part, that the jury was permitted to deliberate with the State s laptop in the room, which contained a PowerPoint presentation of the State s closing argument. Defendant did not ask the court, in his motion or otherwise, to question the jury as to whether they had touched, manipulated, attempted to access anything on the laptop, or actually reviewed anything on the laptop other than the recorded telephone conversations. The State responded to the motion for a new trial that: After the jury retired to the jury room to begin deliberations, a discussion in open court was held in which it was decided that Counsel for the State s laptop (office issued, not personal) would be handed over to the Court s Judicial Assistant and Counsel for 1 A bench conference was held regarding the juror question of whether the jury could listen to the telephone calls or read the transcripts of the telephone calls during deliberations. This bench conference was not reported. However, as noted infra ¶ 6, the State conceded that Defendant indeed objected. 4 the State was asked to show the Court s Judicial Assistant how to operate the laptop. At no time did Defendant further object to the laptop going back with the jury. Defendant actually knew before the verdict was returned that the State s closing argument [PowerPoint] presentation was on said laptop. The jury had no way of knowing where this [PowerPoint] was being stored on the computer, however. There was no other information related to the case contained on that laptop. Moreover, this [PowerPoint] was shown to the jury during closing argument. The State acknowledged in its response that Defense counsel did object to the jury being allowed to listen to the phone calls in the jury room. However, this objection was overruled by the Court. ¶7 The court denied Defendant s motion for a new trial and sentenced Defendant to a presumptive prison term of ten years for one count of attempted child prostitution, a class two felony and a dangerous crime against children. appealed. the Defendant timely Defendant subsequently moved for this court to remand matter to the trial court in order for the State to reconstruct the PowerPoint presentation because it was not part of the record on appeal. We stayed the appeal and remanded it for the trial court to settle the record. ¶8 The trial court held a status conference regarding the remanded matter in November 2010. 2 Theo McCalvin2, judicial We will consider McCalvin s testimony because we ordered the trial court to hold a hearing to reconstruct the record and his testimony was part of that reconstruction. 5 assistant to Commissioner Steven Holding during Defendant s trial, testified that he placed the laptop on a separate table from the jurors, instructed them not to touch it, and played the recorded telephone calls for the jurors. McCalvin testified that although a couple engineer[] jurors initially attempted to access the computer, he instructed them not to. He stated that he did not open up a PowerPoint presentation on the laptop when it was in the jury room. McCalvin testified that although he was not permitted to remain in the jury room during the deliberation period, he checked in every ten or [fifteen] minutes with the jury to see if they needed anything while they listened to the recorded telephone calls. McCalvin removed the laptop from the jury room at the conclusion of the recordings and noted at that time that [t]o [his] knowledge he was the only one that handled the laptop and [n]othing ha[d] been touched on the laptop. The trial court ordered the State to reconstruct the PowerPoint presentation because it no longer had the original presentation. ¶9 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2010). 6 (2003), 13-4031 and -4033 DISCUSSION ¶10 Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motions for a mistrial and a new trial because the State s laptop contained extrinsic evidence and was temporarily placed in the unsupervised jury room. ¶11 We view the upholding the verdict. facts mistrial or discretion. a the light most favorable to State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442, 445 n.1, 65 P.3d 90, 93 n.1 (2003). a in motion We review the denial of a motion for for a new trial for an abuse of State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290, 304, ¶ 32, 4 P.3d 345, 359 (2000); Hall, 204 Ariz. at 447, ¶ 16, 65 P.3d at 95. That discretion is broad . . . because [the trial court] is in the best position to determine whether actually affect the outcome of the trial. the evidence will Jones, 197 Ariz. at 304, ¶ 32, 4 P.3d at 359. (citations omitted). These motions are disfavored, State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 287, 908 P.2d 1062, 1072 (1996), and should be granted justice [otherwise] will be thwarted[.] only when . . . State v. Adamson, 136 Ariz. 250, 262, 665 P.2d 972, 984 (1983). ¶12 The court may grant a new trial if the jurors receiv[ed] extrinsic evidence not properly admitted during the trial and it cannot be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the extrinsic evidence did not contribute to the verdict. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 24.1(c)(3)(i); Hall, 204 Ariz. at 447, ¶ 16, 7 65 P.3d at 95 (citation omitted). The defendant bears the initial burden of proving that the jury received and considered extrinsic evidence. P.3d at 95-96. Hall, 204 Ariz. at 447-48, ¶¶ 16-17, 65 If the defendant meets this burden then prejudice must be presumed and a new trial granted, unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt evidence did not affect the verdict. that the extrinsic Id.; State v. Aguilar, 224 Ariz. 299, 301, ¶ 6, 230 P.3d 358, 360 (App. 2010). ¶13 The court explicitly instructed closing arguments were not evidence. PowerPoint presentation was akin the jurors that Even assuming that the to extrinsic evidence, Defendant failed to make any showing that the jury received and considered McCalvin extrinsic testified evidence. that he First, instructed Judicial the Assistant jurors, in his professional capacity as a representative of the court, not to touch or manipulate the laptop that contained the recorded telephone calls and the State s PowerPoint presentation. He placed the laptop on a separate table from where the jurors were seated, frequently checked on the jurors while the recordings were played, instructions. and he believed the jurors followed his Second, Defendant did not request that the court recall the jurors back to the courthouse to ascertain whether they there had is viewed nothing the in PowerPoint the record 8 presentation. to indicate Thus, that because the jury received and considered extrinsic evidence, prejudice is not presumed and the court did not err by denying Defendant s motion for a new trial or a mistrial. CONCLUSION ¶14 For conviction and the foregoing sentence for reasons, one we count affirm of Defendant s attempted child prostitution. _/s/______________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge CONCURRING: _/s/___________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge _/s/___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 9
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.
