State v. Curtiss

── State v. Curtiss ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 24-0668 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 30, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GABRIEL DANIEL CURTISS, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 24-0668 FILED 03-30-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2023-120386-001 The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge, Retired AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joshua C. Smith Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Laila Ikram Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. CURTISS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Defendant Gabriel Curtiss appeals his convictions and sentences for two sexual assaults, an aggravated assault and an assault. Because Curtiss has shown no error, his convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In the first part of 2023, Curtiss and M.T.1 ended their brief romantic relationship. Then, in May 2023, Curtiss went to M.T.’s home in Scottsdale, Arizona. The trial evidence showed that an altercation took place, and that Curtiss physically and sexually assaulted M.T. Curtiss was charged with three counts of sexual assault, Class 2 felonies; one count of kidnapping, a Class 2 felony; one count of aggravated assault, a Class 4 felony and one count of assault, a Class 1 misdemeanor. ¶3 Before trial, Curtiss successfully moved in limine to preclude certain evidence at trial. As relevant here, the court precluded the State from offering evidence about Curtiss’ prior prison sentences, threats regarding M.T.’s children and evidence of his mental health, including “statements like ‘known to act crazy’ or ‘off his meds.’” The court granted mistrials in Curtiss’ first three trials, once because of improper testimony about his prior time in prison, another after the jury heard testimony about threats to M.T.’s children, and the third given illness of a juror. ¶4 In preparing for the fourth trial, the court instructed the State and Curtiss’ attorney to review any recordings that would be played for the jury to ensure they did not contain information precluded by the order granting the motion in limine. The record shows that the parties did so before the fourth trial began. 1 Initials are used to protect the victim’s privacy. State v. Maldonado, 206 Ariz. 339, 341 ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2003). 2  STATE v. CURTISS Decision of the Court ¶5 On the second day of the fourth trial, the State played excerpts from jail call recordings, totaling more than an hour of recordings from various days, of conversations between Curtiss and M.T. During one nine- minute call, Curtiss said in passing, “I was wacked out of my f***ing mind on them f***ing meds.” During a break after the jury heard another 15 minutes of calls, Curtiss moved for a mistrial, arguing the “I was wacked out” statement violated the court’s order granting the motion in limine. The court denied the motion, stating the statement did not have any prejudicial impact that would require a mistrial. Curtiss did not move to strike the statement and declined the court’s offer to provide a limiting instruction to the jury.