State v. Gollihar ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
    CRAIG ALLAN GOLLIHAR, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 14-0757
    FILED 8-13-2015
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
    No. S8015CR201301522
    The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Joseph T. Maziarz
    Counsel for Appellee
    Law Office of Daniel DeRienzo, PLLC, Prescott Valley
    By Daniel J. DeRienzo
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. GOLLIHAR
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.
    P O R T L E Y, Judge:
    ¶1             Defendant Craig A. Gollihar appeals his conviction and the
    resulting sentence for kidnapping, a class two felony. He argues that the
    trial court erred by denying his motion to admit evidence of the victim’s
    prior sexual abuse as a child pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes
    (“A.R.S.”) section 13-1421(A)(3).1 For the following reasons, we affirm.
    FACTS2 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    ¶2            The victim, A.M., was the only person working at a Motel 6 in
    Kingman on the evening of December 1, 2013. After renting a motel room
    for two nights, Gollihar called the front desk and told A.M. that his
    television remote was not working. She brought him a new remote and
    returned to the front desk. Fifteen minutes later, he called the front desk
    again and told A.M. the new remote was not working.
    ¶3            She then went to his room to show him how to use the remote.
    After Gollihar opened the door, A.M. took the remote from his hand, left
    the door open, and walked into the room. She showed him how to work
    the remote, placed the remote on the desk and turned to leave the room,
    but Gollihar had closed and locked the door. He grabbed her by the
    shoulders and threw her on the bed. Gollihar then climbed on top of her,
    straddling her, and pinned her arm down while trying to remove her jacket.
    A.M. screamed, and Gollihar covered her mouth with his hand and told her
    not to scream. A.M. then hit Gollihar in the head several times with her free
    hand and managed to push him towards the nightstand. She ran to the
    1We cite to the current statute unless otherwise noted.
    2We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the conviction.
    State v. Lowery, 
    230 Ariz. 536
    , 538, ¶ 2, 
    287 P.3d 830
    , 832 (App. 2012) (citation
    omitted).
    2
    STATE v. GOLLIHAR
    Decision of the Court
    door, disengaged the security latch, and ran to the office where she called
    the police and motel manager.
    ¶4            Officer Sandeen responded, arrested Gollihar, and took him
    to the police station. Gollihar was “extremely belligerent,” and smelled
    strongly of alcohol. In fact, after being arrested, he slurred, “The party’s
    over.” Gollihar was subsequently indicted for kidnapping and attempted
    sexual assault.
    ¶5             During the first day of trial, Gollihar filed a motion to admit
    evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1421.
    Specifically, Gollihar sought to admit that the victim had previously been a
    victim of “some type of sexual offense” as a child and believed a conviction
    resulted. Gollihar claimed that the evidence was admissible under A.R.S. §
    13-1421(A)(3) as evidence of the victim’s motive to accuse him of the
    offense. He also requested an evidentiary hearing, and then made an oral
    motion to continue the trial or, alternatively, for a mistrial. The court
    denied Gollihar’s motions, finding the evidence was not admissible because
    it would not show “case specific” or “defendant specific” motive as
    required by the statute. The court further held that the evidence was
    irrelevant and prejudicial to the rights of the victim.
    ¶6            The jury convicted Gollihar of kidnapping but was unable to
    reach a unanimous verdict on the attempted sexual assault charge. The trial
    court subsequently granted the State’s motion to dismiss the attempted
    sexual assault charge without prejudice. The trial court found that Gollihar
    had one prior felony conviction, and sentenced him to the presumptive
    term of five years’ imprisonment with ninety-four days of presentence
    incarceration credit.
    ¶7           Gollihar filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction
    pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§
    12–120.21(A)(1), 13–4031, and –4033(A).
    DISCUSSION
    ¶8            Gollihar contends that the court erred by denying his request
    for a continuance and an evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of the
    victim’s prior childhood sexual abuse. He argues the victim’s childhood
    sexual abuse was relevant and admissible under A.R.S. § 13-1421(A)
    because it may have led her to “misperceive” his actions, providing a
    “motive” for her to falsely accuse him of a crime.
    3
    STATE v. GOLLIHAR
    Decision of the Court
    ¶9             We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for a clear abuse
    of discretion. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 
    166 Ariz. 152
    , 167, 
    800 P.2d 1260
    , 1275
    (1990). Further, a trial court “has considerable discretion in determining
    whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by
    its unfairly prejudicial effect.” State v. Gilfillan, 
    196 Ariz. 396
    , 405, ¶ 29, 
    998 P.2d 1069
    , 1078 (App. 2000).
    ¶10            The admissibility of evidence of a victim’s prior sexual history
    is governed solely by Arizona’s rape shield law, A.R.S. § 13-1421. Gilfillan,
    
    196 Ariz. at
    400–01, ¶ 15, 
    998 P.2d at
    1073–74; see also State v. Herrera, 
    232 Ariz. 536
    , 549-50, ¶ 39, 
    307 P.3d 103
    , 116-17 (App. 2013) (A.R.S. § 13–1421
    “dictates the circumstances under which specific instances of a victim’s
    prior sexual conduct may be admitted”). Section 13-1421(A) permits the
    admission of “instances of the victim’s prior sexual conduct”3 in limited
    situations, and then only if the trial court finds the evidence is relevant,
    material to a fact in issue, and the probative value is not outweighed by the
    danger of unfair prejudice or inflammation of the jury. Further, a trial court
    may admit such evidence only if the evidence is one of five enumerated
    types of evidence. Id. The defendant bears the burden of showing by clear
    and convincing evidence that the evidence is relevant and admissible.
    A.R.S. § 13-1421(B).
    ¶11           A defendant may not introduce a victim’s sexual conduct
    “without a court order after a hearing on written motions is held to
    determine the admissibility of the evidence.” Id. However, “[i]f new
    information is discovered during the course of the trial that may make the
    evidence described in subsection A admissible, the court may hold a
    hearing to determine the admissibility of the evidence under subsection A.”
    Id.
    ¶12             On appeal, Gollihar argues that A.M.’s alleged history of
    sexual abuse as a child was relevant to her motive to accuse him of a crime
    and therefore admissible under § 13-1421(A)(3). Gollihar relies heavily on
    State v. Lujan, 
    192 Ariz. 448
    , 
    967 P.2d 123
     (1998), which predates codification
    of the rape shield law, to argue that he could have found an expert to testify
    in support of his theory that the victim’s alleged sexual abuse ten years
    earlier caused her to misperceive Gollihar locking the door, pushing her
    onto the bed, straddling her and covering her mouth with his hands. He
    3Prior sexual assaults qualify as sexual conduct under rape shield laws.
    State v. Dixon, 
    226 Ariz. 545
    , 554, ¶ 47, 
    250 P.3d 1174
    , 1183 (2011) (“[I]t would
    be anomalous to protect rape victims from questions about prior consensual
    conduct, but subject them to cross-examination about assaults.”).
    4
    STATE v. GOLLIHAR
    Decision of the Court
    claims that Lujan is controlling because the legislature essentially codified
    the judicially-created rape shield law adopted by the Arizona Supreme
    Court in State ex rel. Pope v. Superior Court, 
    113 Ariz. 22
    , 
    545 P.2d 946
     (1976).
    However, Lujan is instructive only to the extent it is consistent with the
    plain wording of the rape shield statute. See Gilfillan, 
    196 Ariz. at
    401 n.3,
    ¶ 16, 
    998 P.2d at
    1074 n.3 (noting that the rape shield statute “seemingly
    codifies the rule enunciated” in Pope and its progeny).
    ¶13            However, even if applicable, Lujan does not support
    Gollihar’s claim. In Lujan, the defendant was charged with child
    molestation for placing his hand inside the nine-year-old victim’s bathing
    suit and rubbing her “front private part” while they were in a swimming
    pool. 
    192 Ariz. at 450, ¶ 2
    , 
    967 P.2d at 125
    . Lujan claimed he had merely
    dunked the victim in the pool and did not touch her inappropriately. 
    Id. at 451, ¶ 8
    , 
    967 P.2d at 126
    . He sought to admit evidence of the victim’s
    contemporaneous sexual abuse by two other men and produced expert
    testimony that the contemporaneous molestations could make a child
    develop “hypersensitivity” to “any physical touch by another adult male.”
    
    Id. at 450, ¶¶ 3-4
    , 
    967 P.2d at 125
    . Our supreme court held that the trial
    court abused its discretion by precluding the evidence because the “nearly
    contemporaneous sexual abuse” supported the defendant’s defense. 
    Id. at 451, ¶ 8
    , 
    967 P.2d at 126
    . The court also noted that Lujan “laid a foundation
    connecting the factual predicate of abuse with the defense legal theory” and
    “made a sufficient offer of proof explaining why [the victim] might have
    incorrectly accused him of an inappropriate touching even if such touching
    did not occur.” 
    Id. at 453, ¶ 18
    , 
    967 P.2d at 128
    .
    ¶14            In contrast, the victim in this case was an adult when
    assaulted by Gollihar, and the prior sexual abuse allegedly occurred ten
    years earlier, when she was a child. And Gollihar did not make a sufficient
    offer of proof establishing a nexus between the alleged prior abuse and his
    acts. See State v. Oliver, 
    158 Ariz. 22
    , 32, 
    760 P.2d 1071
    , 1081 (1988) (“In
    Arizona, evidence of prior sexual history is inadmissible on the issue of
    motive unless the record clearly establishes a factual predicate from which
    motive can be inferred.”); Herrera, 232 Ariz. at 550, ¶ 41, 307 P.3d at 117
    (finding evidence of victim’s prior sexual history inadmissible under
    § 13-1421 and noting that the defendant “ha[d] to have something more” to
    establish a connection between the alleged sexual activity and the crimes
    charged and that there was “no good-faith basis” to admit the evidence).
    ¶15          The record supports the court’s determination that Gollihar
    failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the victim’s alleged
    childhood sexual abuse incident was relevant or admissible under
    5
    STATE v. GOLLIHAR
    Decision of the Court
    § 13–1421(A)(3) as evidence of her motive to accuse Gollihar of a crime.
    Therefore we find no abuse of discretion. And, even if we assume for the
    sake of argument that the court abused its discretion by not continuing the
    trial and allowing Gollihar some time to secure an expert to testify that the
    victim, because of her past trauma, misperceived his actions and intentions,
    we find the error harmless. The jury, without the evidence that Gollihar
    wanted to attempt to find and produce, did not find him guilty beyond a
    reasonable doubt of attempted sexual assault. The jury, however, found
    him guilty of kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt because he lured the
    victim into his room, closed and locked the door, pushed her onto the bed,
    straddled her, and kept her from voluntarily leaving until she started
    screaming and hit him. Consequently, the evidence presented at trial was
    sufficient for the conviction.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶16          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Gollihar’s conviction and
    sentence.
    :RT
    6