State v. Morris

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RAPHAEL RAMON MORRIS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0376
FILED 05-08-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. CR-2022-00281
The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Christine Davis
Counsel for Appellee

Alongi Law Firm, PLLC, Phoenix
By Thomas P. Alongi, Elizabeth A. Alongi
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. MORRIS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Raphael Ramon Morris appeals his convictions for
transportation of drugs for sale, possession of drug paraphernalia and
bribery of a public servant. Morris argues the superior court erred by
denying his motion to remove a juror for cause and by denying his motion
for judgment of acquittal on the bribery count. Because Morris has shown
no error, his convictions and sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In March 2022, Morris was stopped by a Department of Public
Safety officer while driving on Interstate 40 in Mohave County for
following another vehicle too closely. During the stop, Morris gave the
officer permission to search the car. That search revealed cocaine and
fentanyl hidden in the door and a wallet containing $3,000 in cash. The
officer arrested Morris.

¶3 The stop, search and arrest were captured in a video. The
video shows that, while the officer was putting Morris in the patrol car,
Morris stated: “I want to talk to you alone. I have friends that can take care
of you. Only between you and I, is it possible we can work it out?” After
being read his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),
Morris added “I got some people I can call that can work something out or
whatever.” When asked what his friends could do, Morris responded “I
don’t know. I can just try to call somebody to see.”

¶4 Morris was indicted in March 2022 and, in May 2024, went to
trial on two counts of transportation of narcotic drugs for sale, Class 2
felonies; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony, and bribery of
a public servant, a Class 4 felony. After a three-day trial, the jury found
Morris guilty as charged.

2
 STATE v. MORRIS
Decision of the Court

¶5 Morris moved for a new trial, arguing the court erred in
denying his motion to strike a juror for cause. He also argued the bribery
conviction could not stand because no evidence showed he made any offer
to the officer, adding “defendant did not offer any money, fancy cars[,]
houses, or to be introduced to famous people or be put into a movie, there
was no benefit or offer made to any officer.” The court denied the motion
for new trial and to vacate the bribery conviction. Morris was sentenced to
concurrent prison terms for the drug-related convictions, the longest of
which was 12 years, and a consecutive sentence of six years in prison for
bribery.

¶6 This court has jurisdiction over Morris’ timely appeal
pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)
(2025).1

DISCUSSION

I. Morris Has Not Shown the Superior Court Erred in Denying His
Motion to Strike a Juror for Cause.

¶7 The trial took place after the Arizona Supreme Court
abolished the use of peremptory strikes in jury selection. Ariz. Sup. Ct.,
Admin. Ord. R-21-0020. During jury selection, ten prospective jurors were
excused, five for hardship and five because they could not render a fair and
impartial verdict. On appeal, Morris argues the superior court erred in
denying his motion to strike an additional juror for cause.

¶8 “The court, on motion or on its own, must excuse a
prospective juror . . . if there is a reasonable ground to believe that the juror
. . . cannot render a fair and impartial verdict.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.4(b).
“Because a trial judge has the best opportunity to assess whether a juror can
be fair and impartial, appellate courts review such decisions only for abuse
of discretion.” State v. Hickman, 205 Ariz. 192, 201 ¶ 39 (2003) (citing cases);
accord State v. Colorado, 256 Ariz. 97, 98 ¶ 2 (App. 2023) (reaffirming abuse
of discretion standard on appeal after elimination of peremptory strikes).
Morris had the burden of showing the juror was “incapable of rendering a
fair and impartial verdict.” State v. Jimenez, 255 Ariz. 550, 552 ¶ 3 (App. 2023)
(citations omitted). This court “defer[s] to the trial judge’s perceptions of
the juror,” looking to “only whether the judge’s findings are supported by

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

3
 STATE v. MORRIS
Decision of the Court

the record.” State v. Allen, 253 Ariz. 306, 307 ¶ 47 (2022) (citing cases); accord
State v. Montoya, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 71, 554 P.3d 473, 500 (2024) (noting
elimination of peremptory strikes “did not remove trial courts from being
in the best position to assess potential jurors’ fairness and impartiality.”).

¶9 During voir dire, the prospective juror Morris challenges here
disclosed she: (1) had an estranged sister in trouble for dealing drugs; (2)
was strongly against cocaine and fentanyl and (3) had family and friends in
law enforcement. When questioned, the juror added that her feelings about
cocaine and fentanyl would not make her biased and she could be fair and
impartial. Morris moved to strike the juror for cause, noting her “strong
dislike” for fentanyl, her sister being a “drug dealer” and the “large
quantities” of drugs involved in the case. The court denied the motion,
noting “transportation of fentanyl is illegal, and so the issue is not whether
she dislikes or doesn’t like fentanyl,” adding that “several times” the juror
said she could be fair and impartial and that she “never indicated . . . that
she has any bias or felt any bias.” The court stated it had “not seen”
anything “that indicated that she would make her decision based on any
biases or that she would not be able to be fair and impartial” or favor one
side or another. Morris argues the court erred in denying his motion to
strike this juror for cause.

¶10 Morris argues the law applicable to challenges for cause is
significantly different than what it was before peremptory challenges were
eliminated. In doing so, Morris argues “[o]nly one source of appellate case
law has confronted” his argument: a special concurrence in a memorandum
decision. See State v. Dobbins, No. 1 CA-CR 22-0569, 2024 WL 3983423 (Ariz.
App. Aug. 29, 2024) (mem. dec.) (Jacobs, J., specially concurring). As a
special concurrence in an unpublished memorandum decision, that
analysis is not binding. See ARCAP 28(a)(1), (C). The majority in Dobbins
recognized that “[i]f a juror is willing to put aside his opinions and base his
decision solely upon the evidence, he may serve.” 2024 WL 3983423, at *4 ¶
24 (citation omitted). This is the standard, as described above, that the
superior court applied in denying Morris’ motion to strike. And the special
concurrence joined in affirming the conviction in Dobbins, concluding there
was no fundamental error in the failure to strike the juror for cause. Id. at
*8–9 ¶¶ 44, 46 (Jacobs., J. specially concurring). Dobbins does not show the
court erred in denying Morris’ motion to strike in this case.

¶11 Morris also argues the court erred because “[i]t was
impossible to hear [the juror’s] misgivings and not recognize ‘a reasonable
ground to believe [she could] not render a fair and impartial verdict.’” In
considering whether to strike a juror for cause, the superior court “must

4
 STATE v. MORRIS
Decision of the Court

consider the totality of a prospective juror’s conduct and answers given
during voir dire.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.5(h). “[The] party asserting that the
trial court erred in denying a motion to strike a juror for cause has the
burden of establishing that the juror is incapable of rendering a fair and
impartial verdict.” State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 390 (1991) (citation
omitted). Here, the court denied Morris’ motion based on the totality of the
circumstances, including the court’s observations and, most significantly,
the prospective juror’s answers under oath that she could be fair and
impartial and decide the case on the facts presented in open court. Because
the court had a logical and factual basis to find the juror was able to render
a fair and impartial verdict, Morris has shown no error. See Colorado, 256
Ariz. at 103 ¶ 29.

¶12 Morris argues the superior court erred because it excused a
different prospective juror for cause who was “similarly situated” to the
juror he sought to strike. The prospective juror excused for cause spoke
about: (1) misgivings about police based on social media; (2) police lying to
achieve outcomes; (3) police bullying people to obtain statements; and (4)
poor relations between police and citizens. Although indicating he could be
impartial and assess witness credibility individually, he declared: “I will
say that I’m biased.” When asked what he meant by “biased,” the
prospective juror referenced “bad relations” with law enforcement, “good
apples and bad apples” and that he “wouldn’t base [his] judgment on that.”
That potential juror added, however:

But there is kind of like that thing in the back of
my head where, you know, there hasn’t been
good relation or I’ll say good aspects from law
enforcement towards citizens and vice versa, I
guess, right, but that’s just something that’s just
I would say in the back of my mind. But I don’t
-- I don’t know the officer, so I wouldn't -- I
would not make any prejudgment just because
he’s an officer.

The State moved to strike the prospective juror for cause, and Morris’
counsel opposed the motion. After hearing from the parties, the court
granted the motion, finding the prospective juror:

said that he would be biased in this case. I
recognize that there was some rehabilitation. I
am not convinced, though, that he would not be
biased against any police officers that may

5
 STATE v. MORRIS
Decision of the Court

testify. Even in spite of rehabilitation testimony
that he may have given at the best, [the
prospective juror] was . . . fickle in how he
expressed whether he would or would not have
biases.

The court distinguished the two challenges because the juror that was not
struck “never indicated . . . that she has any bias or felt any bias.” The record
supports that distinction, which explains the court striking one prospective
juror for cause and retaining another.

¶13 Morris also argues the superior court erred by “attempting to
salvage” the juror who was retained “even after she (i) asserted—at the
outside—that she ‘was not sure’ if she would favor either party because of
her own sister’s history of drug trafficking, and then (ii) amplified that
qualm with the remark that she did not ‘condone it at all.’” But the juror
ultimately stated she could be fair and impartial, which meets the required
standard. See Jimenez, 255 Ariz. at 554 ¶¶ 10, 13 (“A juror’s assurance of
impartiality need not be couched in absolute terms.”) (quoting State v.
Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 13 (1997)). Moreover, even if a juror has preconceived
notions, the court properly may educate and rehabilitate a juror. See, e.g.,
State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327, 338 ¶ 28 (2005) (citing cases); Jimenez, 255
Ariz. at 554 ¶ 13; see also State v. Reasoner, 154 Ariz. 377, 384 (App. 1987)
(similar). On this record, the juror Morris challenged for cause who was not
stricken affirmed her ability to set aside personal experience and to be fair
and impartial. See Montoya, ___ Ariz. at ___ ¶ 71, 554 P.3d at 500 (“[I]f the
juror is ‘willing to put aside his opinions and base his decisions solely upon
the evidence, he may serve.’”) (citations omitted).

¶14 Finally, Morris’ reliance on Arizona Rule of Criminal
Procedure 18.5(f) does not show error. Under that rule, “the court should
refrain from attempting to rehabilitate prospective jurors by asking leading,
conclusory questions that encourage prospective jurors to affirm that they
can set aside their opinions and neutrally apply the law.” Ariz. R. Crim. P.
18.5(f) cmt. (2022); see also State v. Puga, ___ Ariz. at ___, ___ ¶ 22, 564 P.3d
631, 636 (App. 2025) (“Our supreme court advised that courts should not
pursue rote, unequivocal assurances of impartiality to rehabilitate
prospective jurors. But when a prospective juror gives unclear or qualified
answers of impartiality, Rule 18.5 authorizes the court to clarify the
answers.”) (citing authority). Here, the court appropriately questioned the
juror, as the rules direct. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.5(f) (“The court must
conduct a thorough oral examination of the prospective jurors.”). The court
informed the prospective jurors of the option to ask to discuss their answers

6
 STATE v. MORRIS
Decision of the Court

outside of the presence of the other prospective jurors if they felt
“uncomfortable with any of the questions or talking about [their] answer to
a question in front of all the other prospective jurors.” The attorneys also
had the opportunity to conduct further oral examination of the prospective
jurors in or outside of the presence of the other prospective jurors. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 18.5(f). No requests were made to discuss answers outside of the
presence of the other prospective jurors. Morris has shown no error in the
court denying his motion to strike the juror.

II. Morris Has Not Shown the Superior Court Erred in Denying His
Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on the Bribery Charge.

¶15 Morris argues the superior court erred in denying his motion
for judgment of acquittal on the bribery charge. A motion for judgment of
acquittal should be granted “if there is no substantial evidence to support a
conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1). Substantial evidence is proof
“reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a
conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419 (1980) (citing cases). This court views the evidence in the
light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191,
212 ¶ 87 (2004) (citing cases), testing the sufficiency of the evidence “against
the statutorily required elements of the offense,” State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503,
505 ¶ 8 (App. 2005). “The 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.” State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357 ¶ 22 (2007) (citation
omitted). Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law this court reviews
de novo. State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279 ¶ 5 (2014) (citing cases).

¶16 During trial, the arresting officer testified that during the
traffic stop, Morris asked if they could work something out and stated he
could have someone “take care” of the officer. When the officer asked what
Morris could do to work something out, the officer testified Morris said he
could call somebody and see. The State also presented the recording of the
interaction, where Morris asked to speak alone with the officer to try to
“work something out,” noting he had friends, and offering to “take care” of
the officer. After the State rested, Morris moved for judgment of acquittal
on the bribery count, arguing “there’s no offer for any type of anything to
[the arresting officer] in exchange for anything.” See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a).
The superior court denied the motion, finding that while Morris made no
direct promise or offer, the jury could properly infer one.

7
 STATE v. MORRIS
Decision of the Court

¶17 The final jury instructions correctly listed the requirements
for bribery of a public servant as:

1. The defendant offered any benefit upon a
public servant; and

2. The defendant did so with the intent to
influence his exercise of discretion or other
action in the person’s official capacity as a
public servant; and

3. The defendant acted with corrupt intent.

The jury instructions also defined “benefit” as “anything of value or
advantage, present or prospective.”

¶18 Morris argues the element of “benefit” requires an
articulation of a specific benefit, which did not occur here because “[t]here
was no mention of cash, gifts, influence, or any other perk or advantage.”
By statute, however, “benefit” is defined more broadly as “anything of
value or advantage, present or prospective.” A.R.S. § 13-105 (3). Morris cites
no relevant authority supporting his argument that “benefit” is more
limited and not present here. The trial record shows the State presented
sufficient evidence to allow the jury to conclude Morris offered a benefit to
a public servant, meaning the court properly denied his motion for
judgment of acquittal.

¶19 On appeal, Morris argues for the first time that “wind noise []
drowned out much of [the] dialogue” on the recording, adding the court at
sentencing expressed “uncertainty over ‘how or whether there was an
amount that was implied’” for the benefit. Morris, however, failed to raise
these arguments with the superior court, meaning they are waived. See State
v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 138 ¶ 1 (2018). Moreover, the jury heard the
recording, and the arresting officer testified about Morris’ statements. As
for the court’s remarks at sentencing, they were made by the same judge
that denied Morris’ motion for judgment of acquittal and did not, in any
event, undermine the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction. Cf. State
v. Canez, 118 Ariz. 187, 191 (App. 1977) (construing the court’s comments at
sentencing as “an explanation by the court of why it would not impose a
more severe penalty”). Morris has shown no error in the court denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal on the bribery charge.

8
 STATE v. MORRIS
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶20 Morris’ conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed.

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

9