State v. Watson

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAVID DWAYNE WATSON, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0171

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

October 31, 2019

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County

No. CR20151542001

The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General

Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel

By Linley Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix

Counsel for Appellee

Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender

By Sarah L. Mayhew, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.

ESPINOSA, Judge:

¶1 David Dwayne Watson appeals from his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder, raising numerous issues and assignments of error. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 Because the police investigation extended over a lengthy period of time, and considerable circumstantial evidence was involved both before and during trial, the relevant background requires an extensive account, some of which is deferred to sections below that address particular issues raised on appeal. We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts and resolve all reasonable inferences against Watson. See State v. Felix, 237 Ariz. 280, ¶ 30 (App. 2015).

¶3 In 1995, Watson married Linda, and, in 1996, they had a daughter, Jordynn.¹ Linda's mother, Marilyn, shortly thereafter moved to Tucson "to help take care of Jordynn." In 1998, Linda filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The divorce proceeding was highly contentious, with Watson and Linda fighting over custody of Jordynn and "money issues." In the final divorce decree, Watson and Linda were ordered to share joint legal custody of Jordynn. In early 2000, Linda moved to modify the custody arrangement; after no agreement could be reached in mediation, a hearing was set for August 24. Watson expressed to his new wife, Rosemary, his "frustrations" with Linda, and said "she needs to go away" and she "needs to disappear."

¶4 Days before the hearing, Linda expressed great fear of Watson to a relative and on the night of August 20, she went missing. That same night, when Rosemary came home from her evening job, Watson "appeared to be sleeping," but when she woke up later in the night, she realized he was no longer in bed. Rosemary got up and looked for Watson around the house, but did not find him and went back to sleep. She awoke again near dawn and saw Watson outside "at the back of his Jeep," "cleaning [it] out." She also observed "something with a long handle" sticking out of the vehicle, which she assumed was a "yard tool." Watson told her he had gone for a walk to "clear his head" and handed her a box of rubber gloves to put away.

¶5 The next morning, a man who had been helping Linda renovate her home arrived at her house and noticed the doors were unlocked and a broken cup in the entryway. Police investigators discovered Linda's blood on the floor of the entryway and "a fairly heavy stain" of dried blood on the cord of a vacuum cleaner. The detectives believed the vacuum cord had been lying in blood, and there was "probably more blood" that "had been cleaned up." When subsequently questioned by police investigators, Watson said he had been home throughout the night of August 20, as did Rosemary. She later admitted lying because she "was just trying to protect him" and was afraid of her family "being ripped apart at the seams."

¶6 Watson secured sole custody of Jordynn in October 2000, and in January 2001, Marilyn initiated proceedings for grandparent visitation.² An extended hearing on Marilyn's petition was held over the course of thirteen months, and Watson expressed "extreme[] ang[er]" over Marilyn's efforts throughout that period. In January 2003, the family court granted Marilyn's request for unsupervised visitation with Jordynn. Marilyn subsequently began expressing fear of Watson after he one night "showed up in camouflage at her house." Marilyn was "suspicious that [Watson] was hanging around at her house" and "was always concerned about him showing up whenever and doing something to her." At one point, she asked her neighbor's husband to check the bushes at her house before she returned home after a visit with Jordynn to ensure Watson was not hiding there. After experiencing repeated lack of cooperation by Watson overscheduling and having visits with Jordynn, in April 2003, Marilyn filed a request to enforce the court's prior visitation orders, which was essentially granted.³

¶7 On May 7, 2003, after Marilyn had visitation with Jordynn, one of her friends, Renee, accompanied her and they returned Jordynn to Watson's home and left. Shortly after 8:30 p.m., Marilyn's next-door neighbor heard his dogs barking and stepped out to the front of his house. He saw Marilyn and Renee standing outside Marilyn's house having a verbal confrontation with a man who was pointing a handgun at the women. The neighbor saw "gun blasts come out of the gun," heard the gunshots, and saw the shooter run away. He then called 9-1-1. The neighbor had been unable to see the shooter's face, but provided a general description consistent with that of Watson. Watson arrived home sometime after 9:00 p.m., "white as a ghost," panicked, and sweating. He stripped his clothes off in the kitchen and told Rosemary to wash them, then took a long shower.

¶8 Marilyn and Renee were pronounced dead at the scene. Marilyn had been shot at close range in the back of her head, and Renee was shot, from a less proximate range, in the chest. Marilyn's purse was lying near the sidewalk with its contents intact, including her passport, social security card, phone, and $208 in cash. Renee's fanny pack, which she carried instead of a purse, was recovered from her nearby home containing her wallet and $300 in cash. Both Renee's and Marilyn's house keys were found at the scene on the ground, as well as Marilyn's car keys. Detectives also found several bullet casings, which forensic analysis later confirmed had all been fired from a Ruger pistol. Watson had owned a Ruger handgun but told detectives he previously had sold it, although he could not say who he sold it to. Months later in October, a skull was discovered in the desert northwest of Tucson near the Silverbell Mine, which was years later determined to be Linda's.⁴

¶9 In April 2015, Watson was charged with one count of second-degree murder for Linda's death and two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Marilyn and Renee. The case proceeded to trial in October2016, but the trial court declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. After his retrial in early 2017, Watson was convicted as charged and sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment for the second-degree murder charge, and life imprisonment with eligibility for release after twenty-five years for each first-degree murder charge, all sentences to run consecutively. We have jurisdiction over Watson's appeal pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

Evidence of Third-Party Culpability

¶10 Watson first argues the trial court violated his right to present a complete defense by precluding third-party culpability evidence. We review the trial court's ruling on this issue for abuse of discretion. State v. Prion, 203 Ariz. 157, ¶ 21 (2002). Rules 401 through 403 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence govern the admission of third-party culpability evidence. State v. Machado, 226 Ariz. 281, ¶ 16 (2011). Such evidence must first be relevant, that is, "tend to create a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt." State v. Gibson, 202 Ariz. 321, ¶ 16 (2002) (emphasis omitted). If the evidence is relevant, it is admissible unless otherwise precluded by the federal or state constitution or by applicable statutes or rules. Ariz. R. Evid. 402. And, the trial court has discretion to exclude relevant third-party culpability evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of "unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Ariz. R. Evid. 403.

¶11 Before trial, the state filed a motion to preclude some of Watson's several third-party culpability defenses that were "based on pure speculation." After a hearing, the trial court disallowed evidence that "Hispanic males were seen on Curtis Road on the night of the shooting" and that Renee's "family may have been responsible" for Marilyn and Renee's deaths, finding those matters "not relevant." The court further found any probative value outweighed by "the danger of unnecessarily confusing and misleading the jury."

Hispanic Males in a Cadillac

¶12 Watson maintains the trial court abused its discretion by precluding evidence that "a suspicious Cadillac" with "three Hispanic men sitting around" was reported on Curtis Road "a quarter mile away, at approximately the time that Marilyn and Renee were shot" and the Cadillac sped off "as soon as shots were fired." He argues this evidence was relevantbecause a jury could "reasonably infer that the lone shooter on foot was associated with the Cadillac, and that the Cadillac was the getaway car that picked him up after the shooting." As implicitly found by the court, however, this argument is speculative, with little evidentiary basis. There was no evidence connecting the shooter with the men in the Cadillac, and that it sped away after the sound of gunshots does not suggest that its occupants had any involvement in the shooting. Thus, even if the evidence had some minimal probative value supporting Watson's defense, the court did not abuse its discretion...