## Facts

- Phillip Alan Bocharski lived at a campground near Congress, Arizona, and performed errands for 84-year-old Freeda Brown, who camped nearby and kept cash in a bag in her truck.
- Brown was found dead in her trailer in May 1995; the medical examiner determined she suffered sixteen stab wounds to the head.
- No murder weapon was recovered; investigators suspected a knife associated with Bocharski that had not been seen for months.
- Bocharski’s fingerprints were found in Brown’s trailer, but their age could not be determined.
- A witness testified that Bocharski provided money for groceries and stated it came from “when he killed the old lady,” and the witness described Bocharski as crying afterward.
- A jury convicted Bocharski of first-degree felony murder (burglary as the predicate felony) and first-degree burglary.
- The trial court imposed a death sentence for murder and a consecutive prison term for burglary.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting highly graphic crime-scene and autopsy photographs violated Arizona Rule of Evidence 403 because unfair prejudice substantially outweighed probative value.
2. Whether certain testimony, including an inmate-assault statement and other remarks, was irrelevant or improper other-acts evidence, and if erroneously admitted, whether it required reversal.
3. Whether failure to instruct on manslaughter was reversible error where the jury convicted on first-degree felony murder.
4. Whether loss or destruction of evidence violated due process.
5. Whether the capital sentencing process improperly limited mitigation development and presentation, requiring resentencing.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions for first-degree felony murder and first-degree burglary.
- The court held that some autopsy photographs (including images of the opened skull) had minimal probative value and should have been excluded under Rule 403; admitting them was an abuse of discretion.
- The court found the Rule 403 error harmless because there was no reasonable probability the photos affected the verdict.
- The court held an inmate-assault statement was irrelevant and should not have been admitted, but the error was non-prejudicial.
- The court held that any error in failing to instruct on manslaughter was harmless or moot because the jury convicted of felony murder, for which manslaughter is not a lesser-included offense.
- The court rejected the due process claim based on destroyed or lost evidence for lack of bad faith or material exculpatory value.
- The court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new capital sentencing proceeding due to problems affecting mitigation investigation and presentation, including constraints related to funding and the handling of the defendant’s request to stop mitigation proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Relevant evidence must be excluded under Rule 403 when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; graphic photographs may be excluded when they add little to contested issues and pose a significant risk of inflaming the jury.
- Photographs may be admissible when they help the jury understand witness testimony or depict the scene and injuries, but autopsy images with limited evidentiary value can constitute reversible error if prejudicial impact predominates.
- Erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence warrants relief only if it is not harmless; a conviction stands absent a reasonable probability the error affected the verdict.
- Manslaughter is not a lesser-included offense of felony murder; a felony-murder verdict renders disputes about lesser-included instructions tied to intentional or premeditated murder non-dispositive.
- Due process is not violated by lost or destroyed evidence absent bad faith or proof that the evidence had apparent exculpatory value before destruction.
- Capital sentencing requires reliable procedures and a meaningful opportunity to investigate and present mitigating evidence; material constraints on mitigation development can require vacatur of a death sentence and resentencing.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld Bocharski’s felony-murder and burglary convictions, finding that certain evidentiary errors—admission of especially inflammatory autopsy photographs and an irrelevant inmate-assault statement—were harmless, but it vacated the death sentence and ordered a new capital sentencing because the mitigation phase was not handled in a manner sufficient to ensure a reliable individualized sentencing determination.


State v. Bocharski, 22 P.3d 43 (Ariz. 2001)