State v. Ketchner

1

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DARRELL BRYANT KETCHNER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0458

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

May 2, 2024

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CR200900715 The Honorable Rick A. Williams, Judge

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Kevin M Morrow Counsel for Appellee

The Brewer Law Office, Show Low By Benjamin M. Brewer Counsel for Appellant

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court's decision, in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

MCMURDIE, JUDGE

¶1 Darrell Bryant Ketchner appeals from his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and first-degree burglary. We affirm.

FACTS^[1] AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Ketchner and Jackie^[2] met in 1997. When they started their relationship, Jackie had two daughters, Abby and Katie, and Ketchner had three daughters. Ketchner and Jackie had three children together over the next ten years.

¶3 In January 2008, Jackie obtained a protective order against Ketchner after he kneed her in the jaw and threatened to slit her throat. Jackie later requested dismissal of the protective order because it was "to[o] difficult with 3 children[.]" The court dismissed the order.

¶4 In January 2009, Jackie obtained another protective order against Ketchner because he threw a milk jug at her and broke Katie's phone. The State charged Ketchner with domestic violence by criminal damage and disorderly conduct. Jackie again requested that the protective order be dismissed so Ketchner could see their children. The court dismissed the order.

¶5 In March 2009, Jackie petitioned for another protective order against Ketchner. In the petition, Jackie claimed that Ketchner threatened to kill her and threw rocks through a car in her driveway. The car belonged to Katie's boyfriend, Nick. The State charged Ketchner with criminal damage. The court granted the protective order. Ketchner was prohibited from contacting Jackie, Katie, and Abby and could not enter Jackie's house.

¶6 Ketchner threatened to kill the family if the criminal charges filed against him were not dismissed. Additionally, Ketchner "threatened to throw [Nick] in a ditch" if Nick did not dismiss his charge. On July 2, Ketchner approached a police officer to find out about a police report on the criminal charges filed against him. Ketchner said he believed the charges would be dismissed.

¶7 On July 4, 2009, Jackie and the family celebrated her daughter's birthday. Ketchner was not invited. Jackie, Abby, Katie, Nick, and Jackie and Ketchner's two youngest children returned to Jackie's house after watching fireworks. Jackie and Abby sat at the kitchen table, and Katie went into a bedroom with her younger siblings and Nick. A few minutes later, as Nick walked down the hallway, Ketchner entered the house through a side door that led to the kitchen. Ketchner grabbed Jackie by the hair and began striking her. Nick fled the house to get help. After Katie heard her mom and sister screaming, she and her younger siblings escaped the house through a window.

¶8 Eventually, Ketchner and Jackie were in the driveway in front of the house when a neighbor saw Ketchner swinging at Jackie. Jackie was screaming, "[H]e's killing me, he's stabbing me[.]" Ketchner ran into the house, came back outside, walked to where Jackie was on the ground, and shot her in the head. Then, Ketchner disappeared.

¶9 The police and emergency personnel arrived shortly after the neighbors called 9-1-1. They found Abby lying in a pool of blood in a bedroom. Abby suffered multiple stab wounds, including in her chest and back, and she did not survive her injuries. Jackie survived her injuries but does not remember the incident. The next morning, police found Ketchner on a golf course with a gun and a bag containing sex toys, zip ties, clothing, and a chisel.

¶10 A grand jury indicted Ketchner on first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault, first-degree burglary, and misconduct involving weapons. Ketchner pled guilty to the misconduct involving weapons charge and began serving a fifteen-year sentence. A jury convicted Ketchner on the six remaining counts.

¶11 The Arizona Supreme Court reversed Ketchner's first-degree murder and first-degree burglary convictions and sentences and remanded for a new trial. State v. Ketchner, 236 Ariz. 262, 267, ¶ 27 (2014). The court affirmed Ketchner's convictions and sentences for attempted first-degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault. Id.

¶12 The superior court presided over a second jury trial in 2022 on the first-degree murder and first-degree burglary charges. At the retrial, Ketchner conceded that he killed Abby and shot Jackie. But he claimed that Jackie had invited him over, attacked him, and then he acted in self-defense. The jury rejected the self-defense claim by finding Ketchner guilty on both counts. The superior court sentenced Ketchner to natural life for the murder conviction and a consecutive sentence of 21 years for the burglary conviction. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively to those the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. See Ketchner, 236 Ariz. at 267, ¶ 27.

¶13 Ketchner appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1), (2).

DISCUSSION

A. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Denying Ketchner's Motions to Inspect the Crime Scene.

¶14 In 2019, Ketchner moved for permission to enter Jackie's house "for the limited purpose of taking measurements of the inside of the residence at the heart of the events in this case." Ketchner asserted that during the first trial, the State presented a house diagram with inaccurate interior dimensions. The superior court denied the motion, finding that Ketchner failed to establish a basis for the inspection. In denying the motion, the court weighed the value of a house inspection almost ten years after the incident against the intrusion to Jackie. The court found that photos and a video walkthrough of the house taken the night of the incident diminished the need for new measurements.

¶15 Before the second trial in 2022, Ketchner again moved to inspect the crime scene. The State requested that the court affirm its prior order. Ketchner asserted that the defense team needed to enter the house to gather evidence supporting his self-defense claim. Ketchner wanted to "get a sense of the spatial distances and makeup of the relevant rooms" to impeach Nick's testimony about his sightline from where he stood when he saw Ketchner enter the house and attack Jackie. Ketchner asserted the defense team could minimize the intrusion on Jackie by using a noninvasive laser scanner to generate a three-dimensional image of the house's interior.

¶16 After briefing and argument, the superior court again denied Ketchner's motion to inspect the crime scene and affirmed its prior order. The court found that the inspection would be a significant intrusion for Jackie and that Jackie's objection was reasonable. And the court found that Ketchner failed to prove how denying the motion would prevent him from developing his self-defense claim or challenging witness testimony. The court found that the video walkthrough of the house and the many photographs taken the night of the event were sufficient for Ketchner to raise the self-defense claim and impeach the State's witnesses.

¶17 On appeal, Ketchner argues the superior court denied him his constitutional right to a complete defense by not authorizing the defense team to inspect the property. We review the court's discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Garza, 216 Ariz. 56, 65, ¶ 35 (2007); Blazek v. Superior Court, 177 Ariz. 535, 537 (App. 1994) ("A trial court has broad discretion over discovery matters, and this court will not disturb that discretion absent a showing of abuse."). The superior court "abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision upon irrational bases." State v. Fields, 196 Ariz. 580, 582, ¶ 4 (App. 1999) (quoting Blazek, 177 Ariz. at 537). We interpret procedural rules and review constitutional questions de novo. See State ex rel. Thomas v. Newell, 221 Ariz. 112, 114, ¶ 7 (App. 2009); R.S. v. Thompson (Vanders II), 251 Ariz. 111, 116, ¶ 10 (2021).

¶18 A defendant does not have a "general constitutional right to discovery." Draper v. Gentry, 255 Ariz. 417, 422, ¶ 16 (2023) (quoting Vanders II, 251 Ariz. at 117, ¶ 16); Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977) ("There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case[.]"). And a crime victim has the right "[t]o be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity" and to refuse a defendant's discovery request. Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(1), (5). But "the defendant has a due process right, under the federal and Arizona constitutions, to present a defense" and has a "right to effective cross-examination of a witness at trial." State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 172 Ariz. 232, 236 (App. 1992). Harmonizing these competing interests presents a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. See State v. Moore, 222 Ariz. 1, 7, ¶ 17 (2009).

¶19 Ketchner argues that preventing the defense from viewing the crime scene infringed on his due process rights. But the federal due process right to present a complete defense does not guarantee the right to inspect a crime scene. See e.g., United States v. Bullcoming, 22 F.4th 883, 890 (10th Cir. 2022) (The court found no support under the U.S. Constitution that the defendant's due process rights were infringed because he was not allowed access to...