State v. Cloud

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JUSTIN WADE CLOUD, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0445
FILED 09-08-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2024-153931-001
The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Anne Carmack
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Lindsay Ficklin, Cynthia Dawn Beck
Counsel for Appellant

STATE v. CLOUD
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Samuel A. Thumma1 joined.

B E C K E, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Justin Wade Cloud appeals his conviction and
sentence for possession or use of a dangerous drug. For the following
reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On November 14, 2024, Gilbert police officers executed a
search warrant at a house in Gilbert. Officers ordered the occupants,
including Cloud, to exit the house. Cloud walked from the backyard to the
side of the house and jumped over the side wall to enter the front yard.
Cloud then shoved his hands in his pockets, turned around and ran to the
wall of a neighboring house. When Cloud jumped and tried to climb over
the wall, Officers fired less-than-lethal rounds at him. He then stopped,
pulled back his hands, and surrendered. An officer testified that “it looked
like he threw something over” the wall. Officers searched the neighboring
yard and found methamphetamine in a clear Ziploc bag.

¶3 The State charged Cloud with possession or use of a
dangerous drug, a class 4 felony, and possession or use of drug
paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3407(A)(7), -3415(A). The
paraphernalia charge was dismissed before trial on the State’s motion.

¶4 Fifty-one potential jurors filled out a jury questionnaire to
determine any bias and to confirm each juror’s ability to decide the case in
a fair and impartial manner. The superior court and the parties reviewed
these questionnaire responses before the venire panel was brought into the

1 Judge Samuel A. Thumma was on the panel assigned to this case until

retiring effective August 28, 2026. Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice
Ann A. Scott Timmer appointed Judge Thumma to continue to serve on the
Court through December 31, 2026, to resolve those cases in which he
previously participated like this case. See Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Order 2026-124.

2

STATE v. CLOUD
Decision of the Court

courtroom. Based on that review, by agreement of the parties, the court
excused 18 potential jurors.

¶5 The parties could not agree on several other prospective
jurors. Cloud voiced a preference to perform oral voir dire on the remaining
prospective jurors to help resolve the disagreements. The superior court
initially agreed with Cloud, but later identified several more prospective
jurors it believed should be excused based on their questionnaire responses.
The court then excused seven more jurors with the agreement of the parties.

¶6 On the State’s motion, but over Cloud’s objection, the court
then excused several other potential jurors. Juror 11, one of the excused
jurors, indicated it would be difficult for him to judge others. Cloud argued
against striking Juror 11 because the juror did not say he would be unable
to follow the law or the court’s instructions and did not say he was unable
or unwilling to sit in judgment, only that it would be difficult. Cloud
requested “the opportunity to ask him some questions and voir dire to
ascertain [more information].” Over that objection, however, the court
excused Juror 11.

¶7 The superior court then conducted oral voir dire in open court
of the remaining prospective jurors. The court explained the voir dire
process and asked several questions that required the jurors to raise their
number if the question applied to them. The court asked the jurors if they
were able to hear and understand everything; all raised their numbers. The
court also asked if they knew anyone present in the courtroom, other jurors
included. Juror 4 reported she knew Cloud from high school.

¶8 The court then turned questioning over to the parties. The
State asked Juror 41 questions about his ability to come to court. Cloud
further questioned Jurors 6, 14, 33, 41, 42, and 51. The court then asked if
there was anything else the jurors thought it should know before the final
jury selection. Jurors 13 and 41 provided further information. Based on the
jurors’ answers in oral voir dire, the court and the parties agreed to excuse
Jurors 4, 6, 13, 33, and 41.

¶9 The superior court selected the ten remaining jurors with the
lowest numbers. It then asked the parties to “take a moment to digest” and
ensure they had no further issues to discuss with the potential jurors.
Neither party raised any objections. When asked if everything was “all
good” with the jurors, Cloud’s counsel answered yes. The court then
confirmed with both parties that they passed the panel for cause.

3

STATE v. CLOUD
Decision of the Court

¶10 After a three-day trial, the jury convicted Cloud as charged.
Because the State proved Cloud had a prior non-historical felony, Cloud
was sentenced as a category one repetitive offender. The superior court
sentenced Cloud to a mitigated prison term of one year with 37 days of
presentence incarceration credit. See A.R.S. § 13-703(H). Cloud timely
appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona
Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

I. The Superior Court Conducted Oral Voir Dire.

¶11 Cloud first argues the superior court erred by failing to
conduct oral voir dire, citing State v. Lucas, 260 Ariz. 567 (App. 2025). Cloud
contends the court did exactly what Lucas disapproved by not properly
adhering to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 18.5. We disagree.

¶12 We review de novo the application and interpretation of rules,
Naranjo v. Sukenic, 254 Ariz. 467, 472, ¶ 17 (2023), but review a superior
court’s control of voir dire for an abuse of discretion, see Lucas, 260 Ariz. at
573, ¶¶ 35–37. “[W]e will not disturb [a superior] court’s selection of the
jury in the absence of a showing that a jury of fair and impartial jurors was
not chosen.” Id. at 572, ¶ 32 (quoting State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 451, ¶ 93
(2004).

¶13 Contrary to Cloud’s assertion, this case is not like Lucas. In
Lucas, we held the superior court erred when it relied exclusively on a
written questionnaire in choosing the jury panel, without any oral voir dire.
260 Ariz. at 572, ¶¶ 27–28. The superior court in Lucas did not verbally
question any of the prospective jurors and it denied counsel’s request to do
so. Id. Here, prospective jurors were verbally questioned by the court and
both parties. Cloud fails to show error.

II. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Striking Juror 11.

¶14 Cloud next argues the superior court erred in striking Juror 11
before oral voir dire when Cloud specifically requested to question Juror 11
further.

¶15 Lucas’s mandate that a court conduct oral voir dire does not
require a court to orally ask questions of every prospective juror. In fact,
Lucas explicitly states a court can use written questionnaires to “winnow
out” prospective jurors. Id. ¶ 28. It only requires a court to conduct an oral
voir dire and allow parties to question the prospective jurors during that

4

STATE v. CLOUD
Decision of the Court

time. Rule 18.5(d), (f). Cloud does not explain why Juror 11’s exclusion
alone requires this court to vacate his conviction and remand for a new trial.
Cloud is not entitled to a particular jury, only a fair and impartial one, and
he fails to show that excluding Juror 11 from the pool did not secure such a
panel. State v. Walden, 183 Ariz. 595, 609 (1995).

III. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Conducting
Voir Dire.

¶16 Cloud argues the court’s oral voir dire was insufficient
because it failed to ask about the jurors’ qualifications to serve and failed to
follow up on problematic questionnaire responses. “To succeed on a claim
that the court failed to adequately question the jury panel,” Cloud “must
demonstrate not only that the voir dire examination was inadequate, but
also that, as a result of the inadequate questioning, the jury selected was not
fair, unbiased, and impartial.” Moody, 208 Ariz. at 451, ¶ 95. Cloud has not
met this burden.

¶17 Rule 18.5 requires a court to conduct a “thorough oral
examination of the prospective jurors and control the voir dire
examination.” But the “scope and extent” of voir dire is left to the “sound
discretion of the [superior] court.” Walden, 183 Ariz. at 607. Cloud does not
suggest any questions that he now alleges should have been asked to learn
more about the jurors’ qualifications. Nor does he show that failing to ask
the jury panel more questions resulted in a biased jury or rendered his trial
unfair.

¶18 As for failing to follow up on problematic questionnaire
responses, Cloud only takes issue with one juror: Juror 12. In response to
the question, “Is there anything about the nature of this case that might
cause you to favor one side over the other?” Juror 12 said, “Yes.” Juror 12
explained he felt the court had a right to know he had a history of abusing
controlled substances, but that he did not think it would affect his judgment
or cause him to ignore facts presented at trial. Although the superior court
did not direct any specific questions to Juror 12, Cloud also did not ask
Juror 12 any questions during voir dire, nor did he object to Juror 12’s
inclusion on the final jury panel.

¶19 The superior court gave Cloud ample opportunity to ask
follow-up questions, so any argument that the court’s questioning was
deficient is waived. See Moody, 208 Ariz. at 452, ¶ 98 (“It also follows that a
defendant who believes a trial court’s voir dire to be deficient cannot sit on
his rights and bypass the opportunity to cure the error by questioning jurors

5

STATE v. CLOUD
Decision of the Court

about those subjects that he feels were inadequately addressed when
offered the opportunity to do so.”). Cloud fails to show the voir dire
examination was inadequate.

IV. Cloud Fails to Show the Jury Was Not Fair and Impartial.

¶20 Cloud finally argues Juror 12’s “open acknowledgement of
possible bias raises reasonable doubt that [he] was not impartial.”
However, Cloud failed to object to Juror 12 or his inclusion on the jury
panel. We review unobjected-to rulings concerning voir dire for
fundamental error. State v. Thompson, 252 Ariz. 279, 293, ¶ 46 (2022). “An
error is fundamental if (1) the error went to the foundation of the case,
(2) the error took from the defendant a right essential to his defense, or
(3) the error was so egregious that he could not possibly have received a
fair trial.” Id. (citation modified) (quoting State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135,
142, ¶ 21 (2018)).

¶21 Although Juror 12 answered in the affirmative if anything
might cause him to favor one side over the other, his explanation twice
assured his history of drug abuse would not affect his judgment or
impartiality. Cloud argues this was not enough since a juror’s own
assurances are insufficient to ensure he will be fair, citing State v. Colorado, 256 Ariz. 97, 102, ¶ 22 (App. 2023). However, this misstates the law. Colorado
reaffirmed that “a juror’s personal assurances of his or her impartiality are
insufficient, standing alone, to reveal the juror’s biases or preconceived
notions of a defendant’s guilt.” Id. Therefore, the superior court must
“evaluate a juror’s assurances of impartiality in the context of the totality of
factors under consideration by the [] court, including a juror’s demeanor
and conduct.” Id. “If the juror’s demeanor, conduct, or other factors give the
court a reason to disbelieve his or her personal assurances of serving fairly
and impartially, the court should strike the juror for cause.” Id.

¶22 Here, the court conducted oral voir dire and asked questions
of the jury panel, including Juror 12. After oral voir dire, the court excused
an additional five prospective jurors for cause and stated it was based on
the “in-person voir dire.” The court observed Juror 12’s demeanor and
conduct, considered them together with the questionnaire responses, and
chose to not excuse him for cause. And while the court did not explicitly
state as such, the superior court is presumed to know and correctly apply
the law when the record does not indicate to the contrary. State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 128 (1994). Other than this one answer in the questionnaire,
Cloud does not indicate Juror 12 exhibited any other behavior during voir

6

STATE v. CLOUD
Decision of the Court

dire or during trial that would show he was biased. Cloud fails to show he
did not have a fair and impartial jury.

¶23 Because the superior court did not err, we need not address
Cloud’s arguments about structural error.

CONCLUSION

¶24 We affirm.

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

7