Soto v. State

── Soto v. State ── Case No.: 1 CA-SA 25-0250 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 16, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MICHAEL SOTO, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. RACHEL MITCHELL, Maricopa County Attorney, Respondent. No. 1 CA-SA 25-0250 FILED 03-16-2026 Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2025-006306-001 The Honorable Aryeh D. Schwartz, Judge JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED; REMAND COUNSEL Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Albert H. Duncan Counsel for Petitioner Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Quinton S. Gregory Counsel for Respondent OPINION Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the opinion of the court, in which Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.  SOTO v. STATE Opinion of the Court G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Michael Soto challenges the superior court’s denial of his request to remand criminal charges to the grand jury for a new finding of probable cause. ¶2 Soto argues two issues warrant relief. First, he argues the State used narrative leading and closed-ended questions in presenting the case to the grand jury to the point the State was testifying and the case agent witness was just giving confirmatory answers. Second, he argues the State omitted clearly exculpatory evidence relating to Soto’s justification defense under A.R.S. § 13-205.A. Soto argues the State should have told the grand jury about: (1) social media comments from one of the victims about committing a robbery on the night of the shooting; and (2) the amount of firepower the victims used the night of the shooting—more than 70 cartridge casings, including more than 20 casings from an AK-47 rifle. ¶3 The court addresses both issues independently because they both warrant relief and could recur on remand. The court thus accepts special action jurisdiction, grants relief, and remands to the superior court with direction to grant Soto’s motion to remand to the grand jury. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶4 The State asked the grand jury to indict Soto on one count of attempt to commit armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of misconduct involving weapons. I. The State’s questioning restricted the case agent’s ability to provide information, ensuring the case agent witness provided almost no details to the grand jury. ¶5 The State’s sole witness before the grand jury was the case agent. Of the 48 questions the State asked during its initial questioning, 45 were narrative leading or closed-ended questions. The closed-ended questions called for a yes or no answer, and the case agent followed that lead. The case agent answered no twice, when asked: (1) “And is there any evidence that [Soto’s] right to possess a firearm has been restored?”; and (2) “Was Soto interviewed that night by law enforcement?” For all but one of the closed-ended questions, the case agent answered yes or gave an equivalent such as “correct,” “he does,” “he did,” or “they did.” ¶6 For the other questions, the case agent introduced himself to the grand jury and gave two answers beyond yes or no or its equivalent: 2  SOTO v. STATE Opinion of the Court Q: And when we’re talking about dropping a pin, what does that mean? A: Just sending a location, your location to a group or another person on the phone. .... Q: And what does “run it” mean? A: It’s a street term for a robbery. II. The prosecutor’s questions, not the case agent’s testimony