12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 GRIFFEN & STEVENS LAW FIRM, PLLC Ryan J. Stevens (#026378) 609 N. Humphreys Street Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Phone: (928) 226-0165 Fax: (928) 752-8111 stevens@flagstaff-lawyer.com Attorney for Defendant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF YAVAPAI STATE OF ARIZONA, Case No. P1300CR201600966 Plaintiff. DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL. v. BRIEF RE: COUNCIL INVESTIGATION THOMAS JONATHAN CHANTRY, Defendant, | ~ Defendant, Thomas Chantry, by and through undersigned counsel, submits this post-hearing brief, with the permission of the Court, in regard to the information about the church council investigation the State seeks to introduce during its case-in-chief. At the hearing on April 19, 2019, this Court ruled that the existence of the council investigation, the reason for witnesses to write letters (in 2000), and the reason for certain actions by the witnesses as it relates to the council, are admissible. There was one additional topic the State seeks to introduce, however, which is the subject of this brief: the State’s intent to portray the council as having been “picked” by Walt Chantry (Defendants father) or improperly influenced by Walt Chantry. Defendant objects on the grounds of relevance and lack of foundation. The State bases this intention10 ul 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 23 24 on the testimony of Rich Howe and Eric Owens as it relates to a letter written to them by Walt Chantry. Respectfully, there is no foundation for the inaccurate portrayal of Walt Chantry as. having “picked” the council, being the “founder” of ARBCA, or influencing the council’s investigation, Those things are not accurately articulated by the State.' If Eric Owens or /Rich Howe were affected in some fashion by Walt Chantry’s letter directed to them (not to the council), that information is likely admissible if relevant and supported by adequate foundation, However, to stretch that letter directed to Eric Owens and Rich Howe (who were elders) into an allegation that Walt Chantry orchestrated the selection or operation of the counci/—which is factually inaccurate—should not be permitted. In the transcripts from the first trial, it does not appear that Eric Owens testified about Walt Chantry. On the other hand, Rich Howe did testify as follows: Q. BY MS. EAZER: Mr. Sears asked you several questions before the noon hour about Walt Chantry and how he was an influential leader in ARBCA and so forth. Let me just ask you, sir. Was Walt Chantry very vocal with both yourself and Eric Owens after the allegations came out? Just yes or no? A. Yes. Q Did he express a great deal of anger towards you and Eric Owens * For the Courts information, Walt Chantry suggested to Bob Selph that a council be formed, and it was actually Bob Selph who contacted the elders of MVBC with the idea, and they (Selph and the elders) all agreed it was a good idea. The elders then requested that Bob Selph, not Walt Chantry, organize the ‘council10 ul 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 about the allegations and the way you were handling them? A. Yes. Q To your knowledge, did he express council when they came down to investigate? A. That I'm not aware of. Transcript of Trial, Day 7, page 187, lines 9 to 23 (emphasis added). There is no foundation for the State to allege or argue to the jury in this re-trial that Walt Chantry improperly influenced the selection or actions of the council. Itis prejudicial slant of the truth by the State, without factual merit or legal foundation. It is factually inaccurate. Walt Chantry’s dissatisfaction with the elders (Eric Owens and Rich Howe) is distinct from an allegation that the church council was orchestrated by Walt Chantry. Hypothetically, even if it was true that Walt Chantry had picked the council, that information does not satisfy Ariz. R. Evid, 403. It is not probative of a material fact at issue in the re-trial. The purpose of introducing any information about the council is to explain why certain witnesses acted the way they did, or why they wrote letters when they did. That purpose is not served by alleging that Walt Chantry picked the council or influenced the council, or that the council conducted a “cover-up” operation. As this Court has previously stated, the council is not on trial here—neither is Walt Chantry. Importantly, “[a]s probative value diminishes, the potential increases that it will be substantially outweighed by dangers identified in Rule 403.” State v. Hardy, 230 Ariz, 281, 291, 283 P.3d 12, 22 (Ariz. 2012). u