State v. Merrill

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TIFFANY LEE MERRILL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0147
FILED 3-5-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR202101519
The Honorable Krista M. Carman, Judge

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

COUNSEL

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

Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. MERRILL
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Tiffany Lee Merrill appeals her convictions and sentences for
driving or actual physical control while under the influence and felony
endangerment. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
defendant’s convictions. State v. Thompson, 252 Ariz. 279, 287 n.3 (2022).

¶3 One night in October 2021, D.D. and R.D.1 drove on Interstate
17 (“the freeway”). After exiting the freeway to switch drivers, D.D. and
R.D. noticed Merrill driving the wrong way on the offramp. D.D. honked
her horn and flashed her headlights to get Merrill’s attention. Merrill
turned her car around and followed D.D. and R.D. back onto the freeway.2

¶4 For about ten to fifteen minutes, Merrill drove closely behind,
in front of, or parallel to D.D. and R.D. and repeatedly veered into their
lane. R.D. called 911 and described Merrill’s car and license plate. Then,
Merrill “stopped diagonally” in front of D.D. and R.D. and got out of her
car. D.D. drove around Merrill, and Merrill hit D.D. and R.D.’s car with her
hand. Merrill got back into her car and went “right back on [D.D. and
R.D.’s] tail doing the same thing.” After Merrill pulled ahead, D.D. and
R.D. exited the freeway and waited for a state trooper.

¶5 Later, a state trooper saw a car matching R.D.’s description of
Merrill’s car with a similar license plate. The trooper observed the car
swerving and initiated a traffic stop. The trooper identified Merrill as the

1 We use initials to protect the victims’ privacy. State v. Maldonado, 206
Ariz. 339, 341, ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2003).

2 Merrill testified that she had an argument with her then-boyfriend earlier

that evening, he fled on foot after hitting her and damaging her car, and she
followed D.D. and R.D. because she believed they picked him up.

2
 STATE v. MERRILL
Decision of the Court

driver, noticed that her eyes were bloodshot and watery, and her breath
smelled like alcohol. Merrill admitted she had an alcoholic drink earlier
that evening. Merrill also consented to a field sobriety test, which indicated
she was impaired.

¶6 The trooper took Merrill into custody and secured a warrant
for a blood test. The test results showed that Merrill’s blood alcohol content
was .065 when the sample was drawn. The test was taken outside the two-
hour window following the suspected impaired driving, so a forensic
scientist used retrograde analysis and determined that within the two-hour
window, Merrill’s blood alcohol content would have been between .073 and
.09. See A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(2).

¶7 In November 2021, a grand jury indicted Merrill for
aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor or drugs (counts 1–2)3 and felony endangerment (counts
3–4), naming D.D. and R.D. as the endangerment victims. During the trial,
the superior court granted Merrill’s motion to dismiss count 1.

¶8 In December 2022, the jury found Merrill guilty of count 2’s
lesser-included offense, driving or actual physical control while under the
influence. The jury also found Merrill guilty of both felony endangerment
counts and found that they were dangerous offenses. The superior court
sentenced Merrill to 74 days for count 2’s lesser-included offense,4 and
concurrent, mitigated prison terms of 1.5 years each for counts 3–4.

¶9 We have jurisdiction over Merrill’s timely appeal under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

3 Both counts alleged that Merrill drove the wrong way on the highway, but

count 1 alleged Merrill had a blood alcohol content of at least .08 within two
hours of driving and count 2 alleged Merrill was impaired to the slightest
degree. See A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1)–(2), -1383(A)(5).

4 At sentencing and in the superior court’s March 30, 2023, minute entry,

the court purportedly sentenced Merrill for counts 1, 3, and 4. But count 1
was dismissed, and Merrill was convicted of count 2’s lesser-included
offense and counts 3–4. Accordingly, we correct the record and minute
entry to reflect that Merrill was convicted and sentenced for count 2’s lesser-
included offense, not count 1. See A.R.S. § 13-4036; State v. Ochoa, 189 Ariz.
454, 462 (App. 1997).

3
 STATE v. MERRILL
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficient evidence supports Merrill’s endangerment convictions.

¶10 Merrill argues there was insufficient evidence to sustain her
endangerment convictions because the “victims were not placed in actual
substantial risk of imminent death.” We review whether a conviction is
based on sufficient evidence de novo. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15
(2011). “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. at ¶ 16 (citation omitted). We reverse “only where there is a complete
absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” State v. Allen, 253
Ariz. 306, 341, ¶ 109 (2022) (citation omitted).

¶11 A person commits felony endangerment “by recklessly
endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death.”
A.R.S. § 13-1201.

¶12 Sufficient evidence supports Merrill’s endangerment
convictions. While driving at night on the freeway, Merrill closely followed
D.D. and R.D. while flashing her headlights, which D.D. testified was
“blinding.” When D.D. slowed down, Merrill “pulled in front of [D.D. and
R.D.] and stayed close to the front of [their] car as if to keep [them] from
going faster.” D.D. testified that she tried to pass Merrill, but Merrill moved
“toward the center of the highway,” which forced D.D. to “move almost off
the road.” R.D. similarly testified that Merrill repeatedly veered into their
lane and that it was “almost like” Merrill “want[ed] to run [them] off the
road but not to that extent.” In response to Merrill’s driving, D.D. turned
on her hazards and slowed to around 25 miles per hour. But Merrill “just
kept doing the same thing, on the left side, [and] the front.” After ten to
fifteen minutes, Merrill “stopped diagonally” in front of D.D. and R.D.,
forcing traffic to go to the “outer edge of the road” to pass the two cars.

¶13 Based on this evidence, a rational trier of fact could have
found that Merrill placed D.D. and R.D. at an actual substantial risk of
imminent death through a potentially deadly collision involving Merrill’s
car or other traffic on the freeway.

¶14 Merrill further argues there was insufficient evidence because
“[n]o collisions, near-collisions, near-misses or injuries occurred.” But
endangerment does not require a collision or injury. See Campas v. Superior
Court, 159 Ariz. 343, 345 (App. 1989) (stating “A.R.S. § 13-1201 does not
require that the person who is endangered actually be physically injured to

4
 STATE v. MERRILL
Decision of the Court

constitute endangerment”); State v. Dominguez, 236 Ariz. 226, 229, ¶ 5 (App.
2014) (noting felony endangerment “criminalizes conduct posing a
substantial risk rather than creating an observable result”). And, although
A.R.S. § 13-1201 does not reference a “near-miss” or “near-collision,” the
jury could have considered Merrill’s veering into D.D. and R.D.’s lane and
stopping diagonally on the freeway as evidence that Merrill placed D.D.
and R.D. at actual substantial risk of imminent death.

¶15 Thus, sufficient evidence supports Merrill’s endangerment
convictions.

II. The endangerment instruction was not erroneous.

¶16 Merrill argues we should reverse because the endangerment
instruction was fundamentally erroneous. We review jury instructions de
novo to determine whether they correctly state the law. State v. Solis, 236
Ariz. 285, 286, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).

¶17 Merrill did not object to the instruction in the superior court,
so she must show fundamental error. State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 140,
¶ 12 (2018). To prevail under fundamental error review, a defendant must
show: (1) the superior court erred, and (2) the error was fundamental —
meaning the error went to the foundation of the case, took from the
defendant a right essential to her defense, or was so egregious that she
could not possibly have received a fair trial. Id. at 142, ¶ 21.

¶18 The endangerment instruction stated: “The crime of
endangerment requires proof of the following: 1. The defendant did
recklessly endanger another person with a substantial risk of imminent
death.” The instructions also correctly defined recklessly. See A.R.S. § 13-
105(10)(c).

¶19 Merrill has not shown error, let alone fundamental error.
Merrill argues we should reverse because the instruction here was like the
erroneous instruction in State v. Doss, 192 Ariz. 408 (App. 1998). We
disagree. In Doss, the jury instruction stated, “[e]ach of the charges of
endangerment requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that [the defendant’s]
conduct could cause imminent death of the person named in each charge.”
Id. at 411, ¶ 8. We reversed because the instruction “failed to describe the
act and result that were required to support defendant’s criminal liability.”
Id. at ¶ 9. We also noted:

5
 STATE v. MERRILL
Decision of the Court

A proper endangerment instruction would inform the jury that the
charge required proof that defendant (1) disregarded a substantial
risk that his conduct would cause imminent death of a victim (the
culpable mental state) and (2) that his conduct did in fact create such
a substantial risk as to each victim (the required act).

Id.

¶20 Here, the instruction informed the jury of the culpable mental
state by stating Merrill must have acted recklessly and defined recklessly.
And, unlike Doss, the instruction here described the required act and result,
stating that to find Merrill guilty, the jury must find she “did recklessly
endanger another person with a substantial risk of imminent death.”
(Emphasis added.) The instruction correctly stated the law and tracked the
felony endangerment statute. See A.R.S. § 13-1201; Allen, 253 Ariz. at 341,
¶ 108 (finding no error when an instruction tracked the statutory language).
We find no error.

¶21 Further, even if the superior court erred, Merrill invited the
error and waived the right to challenge it on appeal. See State v. Logan, 200
Ariz. 564, 565–66, ¶ 9 (2001). A defendant invites an error when she
requests a nearly identical instruction. See State v. Lucero, 207 Ariz. 301, 306–
07, ¶¶ 22–25 (App. 2004). Merrill’s requested instruction stated that to find
Merrill guilty of endangerment, the jury must find she “recklessly did
endanger [D.D. and R.D.] with a substantial risk of imminent death.” The
final endangerment instruction switched “did” and “recklessly” but was
otherwise identical to Merrill’s requested instruction.

¶22 Thus, the instruction was not erroneous, but even if it were,
Merrill invited the error.

CONCLUSION

¶23 We affirm Merrill’s convictions and sentences as corrected.

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

6