United States v. Careaga

1

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Mick J. Careaga, Defendant.

No. CR-21-00355-001-PHX-DWL

United States District Court, D. Arizona

April 10, 2023

ORDER

Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge

Pending before the Court are a pair of post-trial motions filed by Defendant Mick Careaga (“Defendant”). (Docs. 109 110.) For the following reasons, both motions are denied.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

I. The Government's Theory

On May 11, 2021, the grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with one count of first-degree murder (Count One) one count of discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence resulting in death (Count Two), one count of assault with a dangerous weapon (Count Three), and one count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (Count Four). (Doc. 1.)

During closing argument at trial, the government set forth its theory of the events giving rise to those charges. (Doc. 104 at 43-54.) The government's theory was as follows. On November 14, 2020, Defendant was drinking with a long-time acquaintance named Ruben Contreras (“Contreras”) but then dropped off Contreras at a casino so Defendant could attempt to meet with an unidentified woman for a sexual liaison. (Id. at 43-45.) Contreras, upon being dropped off at the casino, took an Uber back to the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community (“SRPMIC”), where he lived in a small trailer he shared with his sister, Nancy Rhoades (“Rhoades”). (Id.) When Contreras arrived at the trailer, Rhoades was being visited by a friend named Sara Smith (“Smith”). (Id.)

Soon after Contreras arrived at the trailer, Defendant also drove up to the trailer. (Id. at 45.) After getting out of his car, Defendant had a brief verbal disagreement with Smith about an unspecified topic, then left. (Id. [“[T]here was something that [Smith] and the defendant had conversed for a period of time. And I'll leave you to recall the exact words, something to the effect, I don't want to hear that S-H-I-T, I don't want to hear that S-H-I-T.”].) Afterward, Smith went inside the trailer. (Id. at 46.) Contreras also went into the trailer, where he smoked marijuana. (Id.) Rhoades was also inside the trailer, playing a game on her cellphone. (Id.) Rhoades is a double-leg amputee who ordinarily uses a wheelchair, but due to the small size of the trailer, Rhoades left the wheelchair outside. (Id. at 43-44.)

Some time later, while Contreras, Smith, and Rhoades were still inside the trailer, Defendant returned. (Id. at 46.) Defendant opened the door, came inside briefly, left, then came inside a second time and locked the door. (Id.) Defendant was shirtless, wearing gloves, and holding a gun. (Id.) As Smith rose to stand up, Defendant shot fatally shot her in the head at close range. (Id. at 46-47.) Almost immediately afterward, Contreras tackled Defendant and the pair went to the ground. (Id. at 47-48.)

During the ensuing fracas, Defendant pointed the gun at Contreras while Rhoades called 911. (Id. at 48-49.) During the 911 call, Rhoades identified Defendant by name as the assailant and pleaded for assistance as the sounds of the struggle could be heard in the background. (Id. See also Doc. 46-3 at 5 [transcript of 911 call: “my brother's got ‘em, Mick Careaga”].)

The force of the struggle between Contreras and Defendant caused an opening to form on the wall/floor of the trailer. (Doc. 104 at 49.) Defendant crawled through this opening in an attempt to flee but scraped himself on the trailer's surface in the process, leaving behind his DNA. (Id. at 49-51.) Law enforcement officers eventually found Defendant in the general vicinity of the trailer. (Id. at 50.) Defendant's pants and shoes had blood on them, and DNA testing showed that the blood was Smith's. (Id. at 50-53.)

Based on the foregoing, the government's theory was that Defendant murdered Smith with premeditation (Count One) and discharged a firearm during and in relation that crime, resulting in Smith's death (Count Two), then separately assaulted Contreras with dangerous weapon (Count Three) and brandished a firearm during and in relation to that crime (Count Four).

II. The Defense Theory And Strategy

In light of DNA evidence, the 911 call, and the location and timing of his arrest (all of which strongly suggested that he had been inside the trailer and had been near Smith when she was shot), Defendant understandably did not attempt to pursue some sort of alibi or mistaken-identity defense at trial. Instead, the defense advanced the theory that Contreras had, while inside the trailer, “lunged” at Defendant in a “rage.” (Doc. 104 at 57. See also id. [“Ruben's anger fueled him to go after Mick. That makes more sense than Ruben being heroic.”].)^[1] The defense's theory was that this lunge caused a gun to discharge accidentally, and the bullet tragically hit and killed Smith. (Id. at 55 [“No one intended to shoot Sara Smith that day, no one intended to shoot her. Mick Careaga had no motive.”].) The defense further argued that, once Contreras realized what had occurred, he instructed his sister, Rhoades, to call 911 and falsely blame the shooting on Careaga. (Id. at 57-59.) In closing, defense counsel argued that the evidence of these coaching efforts could be heard in the background of the 911 call. (Id. [“On the call Nancy Rhoades again says, I think he shot our friend. . . . It was after Ruben had gone from the trailer and came back is when he says, you could hear it, he shot her in the head. Tell them, sister, he shot her. To make sure that the story already had started. Because he says it again. Tell them he shot her. That information isn't necessary. They already know someone's been shot, that's been clear. So why at this point into the call is he now starting to say, tell them he shot her?”].)

A key component of the defense's strategy at trial was to impeach Contreras and Rhoades, who were the only witnesses who offered first-hand accounts of the incident, and to elicit testimony from those witnesses that was consistent with the defense's theory. (See, e.g., id. at 59 [“Well, maybe these two were able to bamboozle some, but it's clear those two are not to be trusted. Both have multiple felonies.”].) And in both regards, the defense achieved some success. During his direct examination, Contreras admitted that he has four felony convictions and previously spent more than six years in prison. (Doc. 112 at 44.) Contreras also admitted that he wasn't “particularly happy” with Defendant on the day of the shooting, as a result of being forced to take an Uber home from the casino, and told Defendant “that's some fucked up punk ass shit” when Defendant first returned to the trailer. (Id. at 60.) Additionally, at one point during his direct examination, Contreras offered a profane and non-responsive criticism of Defendant's conduct in relation to the shooting. (Id. at 72 [“That's when I realized, what the fuck is this punk ass mother fucker going to do, man? He going take us all out or what? It's bullshit, man. Chicken shit stuff, man. Especially to a woman, your own cousin, man. It's fucked up. A girl, too. . . . This is bullshit.”].) In response, the Court had to instruct Contreras to only answer the questions being posed to him. (Id. at 72, 74.) The following morning, the Court instructed the jury to disregard Contreras's non-responsive statements. (Doc. 113 at 17-18.)^[2] During crossexamination, Contreras further admitted that he was “mad” at Defendant on the day of the shooting (id. at 27); that he had previously denied being mad when questioned by the police (id. at 27-28); that the first thing he did after returning to the trailer, following the shooting, was to ask Rhoades about the drugs in her pocket (id. at 34-35); that he had committed an assault in 2021 by hitting another man with a two-by-four, causing the other man to be hospitalized (id. at 43); and that two of his prior convictions were for making false statements to a police officer (id. at 50-51).

Meanwhile, Rhoades admitted during her direct examination that she has a prior felony conviction for car theft (id. at 54-55); that she was a long-time user of methamphetamine and fentanyl (id. at 55-56); and that she did not actually see the gunshot that killed Smith, because she was playing a game on her cell phone at the time (id. at 63). During cross-examination, Rhoades further admitted that she has two additional felony convictions (forgery and drug use) which she had failed to mention during direct examination. (Id. at 75.) Finally, Rhoades acknowledged that she previously told a police detective that she heard two gunshots during the incident. (Id. at 82-84.)

III. Jury Instructions

Before trial, the parties jointly filed their requested jury instructions. (Doc. 42.) In relation to Count One, both sides requested the Ninth Circuit's standard instruction on first-degree murder and the government also requested (over the defense's objection) the Ninth Circuit's standard instruction on lesser-included offenses and the Ninth Circuit's standard instruction on second-degree murder. (Id. at 4.) In relation to Count Three, both sides requested the Ninth Circuit's standard instruction on assault with a dangerous weapon. (Id. at 5.) Neither side requested any lesser-included instructions in relation to Count Three.

The charge conference took place on the afternoon of May 11 2022, immediately after the close of evidence. (Doc. 103 at 146-73.) Defendant was personally present in the courtroom throughout the charge conference and did not voice any objections to his counsel's approach during the conference. (Doc. 63 [Defendant was present and in custody].) Additionally, immediately before the charge conference began,...