State v. Woodruff

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

TERRENCE C. WOODRUFF, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0560
FILED 6-30-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2019-105946-001
The Honorable Dewain D. Fox, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Michael O'Toole
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Legal Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Cynthia D. Beck
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. WOODRUFF
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Terrence C. Woodruff appeals his conviction and sentence for
aggravated assault. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 The victim and Woodruff separately visited their former
girlfriend, Candy, on the same night. The victim was watching television
at Candy’s apartment when Woodruff arrived. Candy asked Woodruff to
leave the apartment. A brawl ensued. Woodruff punched the victim and
stabbed him with a knife. Woodruff also warned he would “kill [them] all”
if the police were called.

¶3 The victim left the apartment. Woodruff forced Candy to
remain. The victim met his friends at a nearby park and they called the
police. Woodruff later left the apartment after Candy told him the police
were coming. On his way out, however, he threatened to return and “do
something to” Candy if she “told the police his name and what he had on
him.”

¶4 Woodruff was later contacted by police, first telling them he
left the knife at Candy’s apartment where officers could not find it. He then
said he had the knife and would deliver it to police but never did. The knife
was never recovered.

¶5 A grand jury indicted Woodruff on one count of aggravated
assault, a class 3 dangerous felony. See A.R.S. § 13-1204(A), (E). The State
alleged five prior felony convictions and several aggravating
circumstances, including that the offense caused physical, emotional or
financial harm to the victim. See A.R.S. § 13-701(D)(9). Woodruff pled not
guilty. Prior to trial, the State requested the standard RAJI jury instruction
on flight or concealment. Woodruff did not object.

¶6 The superior court held a four-day jury trial, during which the
prosecution presented five witnesses, including the victim and Candy.

2
 STATE v. WOODRUFF
Decision of the Court

Woodruff also testified, claiming he pulled out a “little steak knife” during
the fight to defend himself but never used it. When asked why he never
called police, Woodruff testified that he did not want to “get arrested over
a little simple fight.” He testified he still possessed the knife “at home”
because he had “no way of getting” it to police. The jury convicted
Woodruff as charged and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison as a
Category 3 repetitive offender. Woodruff timely appealed. We have
jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

¶7 Woodruff argues the superior court fundamentally erred by
giving a jury instruction on flight or concealment because there was no
evidence of either. To establish fundamental error, Woodruff bears the
burden to prove (1) trial error occurred, (2) the error was fundamental and
(3) the error prejudiced him. State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 142, ¶ 21 (2018).

¶8 A flight or concealment instruction may be given if the State
presents evidence from which the jury can infer a defendant’s
consciousness of guilt. State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 285, 286, ¶ 7 (App. 2014). The
question is “whether there is evidence from which it can be reasonably
inferred that the defendant engaged in some ‘eluding’ conduct that either
was an attempt to prevent apprehension, or was an attempt to postpone
apprehension in order to dispose of or conceal evidence that could tie [the
defendant] to the crime.” State v. Cutright, 196 Ariz. 567, 570, ¶ 12 (App.
1999) (citation omitted), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67 (2001). A flight or concealment instruction may be given
despite an alternative explanation for the defendant’s elusive behavior.
State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, 404, ¶ 50 (2013).

¶9 The superior court did not err in giving the flight or
concealment jury instruction. The prosecution presented ample evidence
for the jury to reasonably infer Woodruff’s consciousness of guilt. Among
other things, Woodruff departed Candy’s apartment after she warned him
the police were coming and threatened Candy not to tell police what
happened. He also lied about the knife, first claiming he left it at Candy’s
apartment and later admitting he had it, but still never turning it over to
police. Woodruff’s elusive behavior “obviously invites suspicion or
announces guilt.” State v. Speers, 209 Ariz. 125, 133, ¶ 30 (App. 2004)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Weible, 142 Ariz. 113,
116 (1984)).

3
 STATE v. WOODRUFF
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

4