Background
Thomas Craig Workman, Jr. was retried on charges arising from allegations that he sexually abused two minors. At the second trial, the superior court directed a verdict on one count, and the jury convicted Workman of three counts of sexual conduct with a minor involving one accuser. The jury could not reach a verdict on the remaining count involving the other accuser.
One seated juror’s daughter was a paid intern with the Mohave County Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted the case. The juror stated that the internship would not affect his impartiality or prevent him from acquitting Workman if the State failed to prove its case. The jury also heard that Workman was 27 when he began dating his former wife at age 15. Workman did not contemporaneously object when that testimony was elicited.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Reviewing the juror issue for fundamental error because Workman did not seek the juror’s removal, the court held that Workman failed to establish any error. The juror was not statutorily disqualified as directly or indirectly interested in the case merely because his daughter interned for the prosecuting agency. Nothing in the record showed that she participated in the prosecution or that her employment gave her father an interest in its outcome. His unequivocal assurances of impartiality also supported the superior court’s implicit finding that he could serve fairly under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.4(b).
The court likewise found no reversible error from the testimony about Workman’s former wife’s age. Because the motion-in-limine ruling had not definitively resolved whether the State could ask how old she was when the couple began dating, Workman’s failure to object at trial limited review to fundamental error. Without deciding whether admitting the testimony was erroneous, the court held that Workman failed to show the assumed error satisfied any of the three fundamental-error prongs. The State did not argue that the former wife was another victim or use her age to prove a propensity for relationships with underage girls, and the limited testimony was largely cumulative of other evidence about the relationship’s chronology. Workman also failed to show that a reasonable jury plausibly could have reached a different verdict without it.
Key Takeaways
- A juror is not automatically disqualified merely because a family member works for the prosecuting agency; the record must establish that the juror was directly or indirectly interested in the particular case.
- On fundamental-error review, the defendant must first establish error. Separate proof of prejudice is required when the error affected the case’s foundation or deprived the defendant of an essential defense right, but not when the error was so egregious that a fair trial was impossible.
- A motion in limine preserves an evidentiary issue without a renewed objection only when the trial court definitively ruled on the particular issue later raised on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a juror’s connection to a prosecuting office through a relative does not, without case-specific evidence, establish statutory interest or an inability to remain impartial. It also underscores the importance of making a contemporaneous objection when a pretrial ruling did not squarely decide the admissibility question presented at trial.
The memorandum decision is designated not for official publication and is nonprecedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), subject to the rule’s permitted uses.