State v. Gee

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

STANLEY W. GEE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0355
FILED 7-11-2023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-111944-001
The Honorable Roy C. Whitehead, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Rebecca Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Daniel Fenzel
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. GEE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

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

¶1 Defendant Stanley Gee appeals his convictions and sentences
for two counts of forgery. Because he fails to show prejudice, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Defendant worked for a staffing agency that supplied in-
home care to elderly and disabled clients, including Ronda and Reggie, who
Defendant visited to help with ordinary tasks.1

¶3 Around this time, Ronda and Reggie discovered that
someone had drawn forged checks on their banking accounts. Ronda
reported a forged check for $568 made out to “Cinnabar 1025,” an
apartment complex. Police later learned that Defendant lived at Cinnabar
Apartments in unit 1025. Reggie reported a forged check for $300 made out
to Defendant. Defendant was arrested for two counts of forgery.

¶4 Reggie died about six months before trial, and his sister
intended to testify at trial about her communications with Reggie
concerning the investigation. Defendant successfully moved to preclude
her testimony about investigation-related communications with Reggie
under the hearsay rule.

¶5 At a four-day jury trial, the court heard testimony from
Defendant and several witnesses, including Reggie’s sister. She testified
that she lived with her brother during the relevant period, helped him pay
his bills and noticed the forged check. She also testified that she and Reggie
jointly filed the police report and followed the investigation together. The
prosecutor asked Reggie’s sister about her brother’s assertions regarding
the forgery investigation. Defendant made several objections; some were
sustained, others overruled.

1 We use pseudonyms to protect the victims’ identities. See Ariz. Sup.
Ct. R. 111(i).

2
 STATE v. GEE
Decision of the Court

¶6 Defendant unsuccessfully moved for a mistrial, and then
moved to dismiss for prosecutorial error. The jury convicted Defendant of
two counts of forgery, both class 4 felonies, and the court sentenced him to
two concurrent three-year sentences with 87 days of pre-sentence
incarceration credit.

¶7 After trial but before sentencing, Defendant moved for a new
trial under Rule 15, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), pointing to new footage he received from a responding police
officer’s body camera, which included witness statements. Defendant
argued the footage was relevant for impeachment because it showed that
Ronda made inconsistent statements about how frequently she wrote
checks. The superior court denied the motion after watching the footage at
an evidentiary hearing, and found “no violation of Brady.”

¶8 Defendant timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Ariz.
Const. art. VI, § 9 and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 Defendant raises two arguments on appeal.

I. Disclosure Issue

¶10 First, Defendant argues the superior court should have
granted his motion for a new trial under Rule 15 and Brady based on the
State’s post-conviction disclosure of the body camera footage.

¶11 We review the superior court’s ruling for an abuse of
discretion. See State v. Arvallo, 232 Ariz. 200, 201, ¶ 7 (App. 2013). We defer
to the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, State v. O’Dell,
202 Ariz. 453, 456–57, ¶ 8 (App. 2002), and we do not reweigh the evidence,
State v. MacHardy, 254 Ariz. 231, 241, ¶ 29 (App. 2022).

¶12 The prosecution must “disclose all plainly exculpatory
evidence within its possession and violates due process if it fails to do so.”
O’Dell, 202 Ariz. at 457, ¶ 10; see also Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 (“[S]uppression
by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request
violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”).

¶13 Defendant claims the State violated Brady by failing to
produce the body camera footage; but failure to disclose potentially
exculpatory evidence is not enough to warrant a new trial. See State v. Bracy,

3
 STATE v. GEE
Decision of the Court

145 Ariz. 520, 528 (1985) (suppressed evidence must also be “material”).
Defendant must show that he suffered prejudice, meaning “the undisclosed
material would have created a reasonable doubt had it been presented to
the jury.” State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 405 (1989).

¶14 Defendant has shown no prejudice here. The court found the
evidence was merely cumulative. Even without the body camera footage,
the record has ample evidence to support the court’s ruling. For starters,
Defendant wrote one check to himself and the other to his apartment
complex for his rent. The court did not abuse its discretion.

II. Hearsay

¶15 Defendant argues prosecutorial misconduct, too. He
contends the prosecutor asked questions of Reggie’s sister that exceeded
the court’s earlier ruling on Defendant’s motion in limine. We review that
argument for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Gonzales, 105 Ariz. 434, 437
(1970).

¶16 Here again, Defendant must prove prejudice—namely, that a
reasonable jury could have reached a different verdict without the error.
State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 144, ¶ 29 (2018) (citation omitted). He has
not. Defense counsel successfully objected during these questions, and the
court instructed the jury to disregard all stricken statements. We presume
the jury follows the instructions. See State v. Gallardo, 225 Ariz. 560, 569, ¶
40 (2010). No reasonable likelihood exists here that the questions
influenced the verdict.

CONCLUSION

¶17 We affirm.

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

4