State v. Caldera

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ANGEL FERNANDO CALDERA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0326
FILED 04-01-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. CR2023-00536
The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Law Offices of Stephanie K. Bond, PC, Tucson
By Stephanie K. Bond
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Deborah Celeste Kinney
Counsel for Appellee
 STATE v. CALDERA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding
Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Angel Fernando Caldera appeals his conviction and sentence
for manslaughter. We affirm.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 At the beginning of May 2023, Caldera rented a room to the
victim, his childhood friend. But according to Caldera, the friendship soon
devolved into disagreements, and by mid-May, he ordered the victim to
leave. When the victim returned a few days later to retrieve his belongings,
a scuffle ensued, ending with Caldera shooting and killing the victim.

¶3 The State indicted Caldera on one count of second-degree
murder, a Class 1 felony. Caldera claimed he was not guilty because he
acted in self-defense. As part of his justification defense, at the trial, Caldera
revealed his plan to argue the victim, who was typically a calm person, was
acting more aggressively on the day of the incident because he had drugs
in his system. While the court did not admit the victim’s post-mortem
toxicology report, it did allow testimony revealing the victim used drugs.

¶4 The jury acquitted Caldera of second-degree murder but
found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. The jury
also found the State had proved the offense was dangerous and the victim’s
immediate family suffered physical, emotional, or financial harm.

¶5 The court sentenced Caldera to 15 years in prison. Caldera
timely appealed his conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction under
Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the
verdict. State v. Mendoza, 248 Ariz. 6, 11, ¶ 1, n.1 (App. 2019).

2
 STATE v. CALDERA
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review the superior court’s evidentiary rulings for an
abuse of discretion, State v. Fish, 222 Ariz. 109, 114, ¶ 8 (App. 2009), and
“give[] deference to the trial court’s determination of relevance,” State v.
Rose, 231 Ariz. 500, 513-14, ¶¶ 62-63 (2013). If a discretionary decision is
based on an error of law or lacks evidentiary support, the court has abused
its discretion. Fish, 222 Ariz. at 114, ¶ 8; State v. Johnson, 247 Ariz. 166,
195, ¶ 93 (2019).

A. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Finding the Report
Irrelevant.

¶7 Generally, evidence of a person’s other crimes, wrongs, or
acts (specific act evidence) is inadmissible to prove a victim’s character or
that he or she acted in conformity with those acts. Fish, 222 Ariz. at 117,
¶¶ 20-21; Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). A court may admit such evidence for
other purposes, but even then, if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, the court may exclude it.
Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b)(2); Ariz. R. Evid. 403.

¶8 An exception to the general rule exists if the defendant claims
self-defense, which allows a defendant to offer the victim’s prior acts to
show he or she reasonably feared for his or her safety and used a reasonable
degree of force considering that fear. Fish, 222 Ariz. at 121, ¶ 37. But if the
defendant was unaware of the victim’s prior acts during the incident, those
acts could not have made the defendant fear for his or her safety and are
thus inadmissible. Id. at 122, ¶¶ 37-38; see also State v. Zaid, 249 Ariz. 154,
158, ¶ 12 (App. 2020) (A defendant may support his claim of self-defense
with evidence of the victim’s specific instances of conduct “only if the
defendant knew of them,” or to show motive, opportunity, intent, or
another purpose. (quoting State v. Connor, 215 Ariz. 553, 559, ¶ 13 (App.
2007)).

¶9 Caldera argues the court should have admitted the toxicology
report showing the victim had methamphetamine in his system at the time
of his death. Caldera contends the report was admissible because he had
reason to believe the victim was using methamphetamine. And he elicited
testimony on cross from the State’s witness that using methamphetamine
could make an individual more aggressive, and he could provide expert
testimony about methamphetamine use and aggression.

¶10 But Caldera’s arguments cannot establish admissibility. For
the report to be relevant, Caldera needed to show he knew the victim was

3
 STATE v. CALDERA
Decision of the Court

using the drugs at the time of the incident, the victim’s drug use was
connected to his prior violent acts, and because of these prior acts, Caldera
reasonably feared for his life. See Fish, 222 Ariz. at 121, ¶¶ 36-37. But
Caldera simply argued he had reason to know the victim was on drugs.
Caldera never argued the victim’s drug use made him fear for his life.

¶11 Nor has he shown he knew, at the time of the altercation, that
methamphetamine use could make an individual more aggressive. And
even if he had made such an argument, he would need to show he knew
the victim himself tended to be more aggressive when using the drug, as
the admissibility relates to the “Victim’s prior violent acts.” Fish, 222 Ariz.
at 122, ¶ 38 (emphasis added). Put simply, drug usage alone is not enough
to qualify as a victim’s prior violent or aggressive act. That reasoning is
exactly why the court did not admit the report, stating, “there’s no
evidence . . . that [Caldera] was aware that the victim . . . is acting
differently because he had drugs in his system or was acting aggressively[]
because he had drugs in his system. So . . . I don’t find it relevant at this
point.” We find no abuse of discretion.

B. Assuming It Was Error to Exclude the Report, the Error Was
Harmless Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

¶12 Even if we concluded the toxicology report was relevant,
Caldera was not harmed by its suppression. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz.
561, 567, ¶ 18 (2005) (Courts review trial error under the harmless-error
standard when the objection is preserved.). Whether an error is harmless is
a fact-specific inquiry that must be evaluated in light of the totality of
properly admitted evidence. State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485, ¶ 50 (1999).
In performing this inquiry, a court looks at whether the verdict rendered in
the trial was “surely unattributable to the error.” State v. Romero, 240 Ariz.
503, 507, ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (quotation omitted). And the “State has the burden
of convincing us that any error was harmless.” State v. Anthony, 218 Ariz.
439, 446, ¶ 39 (2008). There is a list of factors to analyze when determining
whether an error is harmless, two of which are relevant here: whether the
party could present the substance of the claim or defense, and if other
evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Romero, 240 Ariz. at
508, ¶ 8.

¶13 At the trial, the jurors received ample evidence of the victim’s
drug use. Both Caldera and his roommate testified that the victim used
drugs while living in their house. And the State stipulated that pills and foil
with burnt residue were found in the victim’s bedroom, and pills were
found in the victim’s car. This uncontested evidence supported Caldera’s

4
 STATE v. CALDERA
Decision of the Court

closing argument that “[h]e was being attacked by someone he believed
was on drugs.” Given the evidence and argument before us, we cannot say
the lack of the toxicology report significantly affected Caldera’s ability to
present his defense. See Romero, 240 Ariz. at 510, ¶ 15 (“Whether an error is
harmless may also be considered in the context of a party’s ability to present
the substance of his claim or defense.”).

¶14 This conclusion is especially true given the evidence
contradicting Caldera’s self-defense claim. Romero, 240 Ariz. at 508, ¶ 8-9
(Not all harmless error factors will apply or carry the same weight, and
overwhelming evidence “alone may be dispositive.”) Caldera admitted that
although the victim threatened to stab him, he did not see a weapon and
that he shot the victim at least five times. Further, Caldera’s neighbor
testified that Caldera told him a different version of events, stating the two
were arguing over rent and that he shot the victim in response to him
asking, “[w]hat are you going to do about it?” Cf. A.R.S. § 13-405 (A person
is justified in using deadly physical force to protect himself against the
other’s use of unlawful physical deadly force to the extent that a reasonable
person would believe it necessary.). Given the strength of the State’s case,
we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that any alleged error did not affect
the verdict. Romero, 240 Ariz. at 507, ¶ 7 (“We must be confident beyond a
reasonable doubt that the error had no influence on the jury’s judgment.”
(quotation omitted)).

CONCLUSION

¶15 We affirm Caldera’s conviction and sentence.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5