Background
Police stopped Joseph Raymond Chakhachiro after observing traffic violations in Phoenix in February 2020. Officers learned his license was revoked and observed signs of impairment. A search found a bag containing fentanyl in his pocket, and a later blood test was positive for fentanyl and metabolites, methamphetamine, amphetamine, and Alprazolam.
The State charged Chakhachiro with two aggravated-DUI counts and narcotic-drug possession. One possession count was dismissed. Chakhachiro repeatedly did not appear for pretrial proceedings and failed to appear for his April 2024 trial, though he was represented by counsel. The jury convicted him on the remaining counts, and the superior court imposed concurrent presumptive ten-year terms for the aggravated-DUI convictions.
The Court’s Holding
In an Anders appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by trying Chakhachiro in absentia. He had been present when the trial date was set and had been advised of both his right to attend and that trial could proceed if he did not appear. His assertion that he was in inpatient rehabilitation did not establish error.
The court also rejected his mistrial arguments. A police officer’s unsolicited reference to heroin was cured by a limiting instruction, approved by defense counsel, that struck the statement and explained that Chakhachiro was not charged with a heroin-related offense. Confusion over the status of a bench warrant did not excuse his failure to appear for the scheduled trial. Testimony about the condition of his veins was relevant to explain the officer’s decision to seek a warrant for a hospital blood draw, not improper character evidence. The court’s independent review found no reversible error.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant may be tried in absentia when the court may infer the absence was voluntary under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.1.
- An unexpected improper witness remark does not require a mistrial when a curative instruction adequately addresses potential prejudice.
- Evidence explaining an officer’s investigative decision is not necessarily inadmissible character evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that notice of the trial date, the right to be present, and the consequences of nonappearance can support a finding of voluntary absence even when a defendant later offers an explanation for missing trial. It also illustrates the appellate deference given to trial courts’ decisions that a limiting instruction, rather than a mistrial, will cure an unsolicited evidentiary reference.