Background
In the early morning hours of April 21, 2019, a Maricopa County officer observed a vehicle drifting repeatedly into a bike lane and conducted a traffic stop. The driver, Collin Freestone, told the officer his license was revoked and that he had smoked marijuana five or six hours earlier. A search of the vehicle incident to towing revealed a still-smoldering hand-rolled marijuana cigarette. The State indicted Freestone on two counts of aggravated driving while under the influence (class 4 felonies), later dismissing one count.
Freestone repeatedly failed to appear for pretrial proceedings and again absented himself on the day of trial. After defense counsel confirmed he had notified Freestone of the trial date, the court found the absence voluntary and proceeded. The jury convicted Freestone on the remaining count, and he appealed.
On appeal, Freestone raised two claims: (1) that the trial court abused its discretion by striking a prospective juror for cause over defense objection, and (2) that the court erroneously admitted testimony revealing that Freestone had invoked his right to counsel during the investigation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on both grounds. As to the juror strike, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing prospective juror three for cause. The juror had stated that her defense-leaning bias would make her “not fair or impartial,” and although she later softened that statement, she only equivocated when asked whether she would follow jury instructions — saying she “think[s]” she would. Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.4(b), a court must excuse a juror if there is reasonable ground to believe she cannot render a fair and impartial verdict, and the record supported that finding.
As to the attorney-invocation testimony, the court held that while evidence of a defendant’s request to speak with counsel is generally inadmissible, defense counsel opened the door by cross-examining the arresting officer about the brevity of the investigation and the absence of field sobriety tests — questions that implied the officer’s work was deficient. Because the actual reason those steps were omitted was Freestone’s invocation of his right to counsel, the State’s redirect testimony correcting that impression was specifically responsive to the invitation created by defense counsel. The court also noted that defense counsel affirmatively agreed on the record to allow the testimony, effectively forfeiting any objection.
Key Takeaways
- A juror’s equivocal assurance that she “thinks” she can follow instructions does not cure an earlier, clear statement of partiality; trial courts retain broad discretion to strike such jurors for cause even over defense objection.
- Under Arizona’s open-door doctrine, cross-examination that implies an investigation was cursory or deficient can render otherwise inadmissible evidence — including a defendant’s invocation of the right to counsel — admissible on redirect to explain the investigation’s scope.
- Defense counsel’s on-the-record agreement to allow the attorney-invocation testimony reinforced the open-door finding and foreclosed appellate relief.
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical reminder that cross-examination strategy carries evidentiary consequences. Attorneys who challenge the thoroughness of a police investigation risk opening the door to testimony that explains — in ways potentially damaging to their client — why certain investigative steps were not taken. Where the explanation is the defendant’s own invocation of constitutional rights, the resulting evidence can be difficult to counter and carries obvious prejudicial weight.
The juror-strike holding reinforces that rehabilitative questioning during voir dire does not guarantee a juror’s continued service. Appellate courts will defer to the trial judge’s in-person assessment of credibility and candor, and a juror who hedges rather than clearly retracts a statement of bias remains vulnerable to a for-cause strike regardless of defense objection.