Background
A state trooper observed Christopher John Dubois speeding and attempted a traffic stop. Dubois initially stopped, then accelerated away before the trooper intervened and took him into custody. Officers observed signs of intoxication, and the State charged Dubois with aggravated DUI and unlawful flight from a law-enforcement vehicle.
Before trial, the superior court suppressed Dubois’ blood-test results because the trooper had unreasonably interfered with his right to obtain an independent test. During trial, however, the prosecutor asked the trooper whether observations of Dubois’ slurred speech appeared on body-camera footage that had not been presented. Dubois objected and sought a mistrial, arguing that the question improperly referenced excluded evidence and invited speculation. The court instructed the jury to disregard the question and later denied the mistrial motion.
The jury convicted Dubois of two counts of aggravated DUI and one count of unlawful flight. He received concurrent four-month prison terms on the DUI counts, followed by two years of probation on all counts, and appealed the denial of a mistrial.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Although it agreed that the prosecutor’s question was improper and emphasized that prosecutors must exercise great care not to elicit testimony about excluded evidence, the court concluded that the question did not warrant a mistrial.
The court found overwhelming evidence of impairment apart from the suppressed blood-test results. Officers testified that Dubois had a mostly empty wine bottle purchased about 45 minutes before the stop, smelled strongly of alcohol, had watery and bloodshot eyes and dilated pupils, slurred his speech, appeared dazed and lethargic, responded slowly, and lost his balance. An expert testified that those signs were consistent with alcohol impairment. The evidence also established unlawful flight because Dubois accelerated away after a uniformed trooper in a marked patrol car used lights, a siren, and a loudspeaker to direct him to stop.
The trial court’s immediate instruction to disregard the question, reinforced by its final jury instructions, adequately addressed any potential prejudice. Because nothing in the record showed that the jurors disregarded those instructions or relied on speculation about the excluded evidence, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial.
Key Takeaways
- A prosecutor’s improper reference to excluded evidence does not automatically require a mistrial when curative instructions and overwhelming independent evidence eliminate any reasonable effect on the verdict.
- Courts presume jurors follow instructions to disregard improper questions and answers unless the record indicates otherwise.
- The appellate court cautioned prosecutors to avoid raising excluded evidence in the first place instead of relying on corrective instructions or a mistrial ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding showing required to overturn a conviction based on an improper prosecutorial question. Even when a question touches excluded evidence, a conviction may stand if the court promptly cures the error and the properly admitted evidence independently establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as authorized by that rule.