## Facts

- Bobby Favors and two other men went to Jack Weylor’s property in Pima County, Arizona.
- Weylor was forced at rifle point to surrender his wallet and its contents.
- Favors was identified as one of the perpetrators, but he claimed an alibi.
- Favors was charged with robbery committed on December 7, 1960, tried in Pima County Superior Court, and convicted by a jury.
- At trial, a defense witness gave testimony supporting the alibi; the prosecution confronted the witness with a signed prior statement inconsistent with that testimony.
- A witness made an unsolicited reference implying Favors had previously been in jail; defense counsel did not promptly seek curative relief.
- During deliberations, the jury requested to rehear certain testimony; the court provided a readback limited to what the jury requested.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution to reopen its case, after both sides rested and after defense argument, to present evidence establishing venue in Pima County.
2. Whether the trial court erred by allowing impeachment of a defense witness with a signed prior inconsistent statement.
3. Whether a limiting instruction restricting certain evidence to credibility purposes constituted an improper judicial comment on the evidence or otherwise caused prejudice.
4. Whether an unsolicited reference to the defendant’s prior incarceration required a mistrial, and whether failure to promptly object or move to strike waived the claim.
5. Whether the trial court erred in permitting a readback of only the testimony specifically requested by the jury.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the robbery conviction.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in permitting the State to reopen to supply proof of venue.
- The signed prior inconsistent statement was properly admitted for impeachment of the defense witness.
- The limiting instruction was a proper guidance on the permissible use of evidence and was not reversible error.
- The unsolicited reference to prior incarceration did not warrant a mistrial, particularly given the lack of a timely request for curative action.
- Limiting the readback to the jury’s specific request was permissible and not prejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has broad discretion to allow the prosecution to reopen its case to present omitted proof such as venue, even after resting and argument, where doing so does not unfairly prejudice the defendant.
- A witness may be impeached with a prior inconsistent statement when the witness is present and subject to cross-examination about the inconsistency.
- A limiting instruction directing the jury to consider certain evidence only for credibility (and not as substantive proof) is generally proper and is not, by itself, an impermissible judicial comment on the evidence.
- Claims of prejudice from unsolicited testimony (including references to prior incarceration) ordinarily require a timely objection, motion to strike, or request for a curative instruction; failure to seek relief may waive appellate review.
- The trial court retains discretion in responding to jury requests to rehear testimony, and providing a readback confined to the jury’s specific request is not error absent unfairness or prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the challenged rulings fell within the trial court’s discretion and did not amount to reversible error, including reopening to prove venue, impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, limiting instructions, denial of mistrial after an unprompted jail reference, and a targeted readback of testimony requested by the jury.


State v. Favors, 375 P.2d 260 (Ariz. 1962)