State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero

── State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero ── Court: Arizona Supreme Court Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DIMITRI POLANCO ROMERO, Appellant. No. CR-24-0237-PR Filed May 15, 2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County The Honorable Catherine M. Woods, Judge No. CR20203538001 AFFIRMED Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division Two 258 Ariz. 237 (App. 2024) VACATED COUNSEL: Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General, Joshua D. Bendor (argued), Solicitor General, Alice M. Jones, Deputy Solicitor General/Section Chief of Criminal Appeals, Michael T. O’Toole, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona David J. Euchner (argued), Pima County Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, Attorney for Dimitri Polanco Romero Rosemarie Pena-Lynch, Office of Public Defense Services, Gary Kula, Office of the Public Defender, Kristen Reller, Deputy Public Defender, Sherri McGuire Lawson, Office of the Legal Defender, Shannon Burns, Office of the Public Advocate, Steve Koestner, Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix,  STATE V. ROMERO Opinion of the Court Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Maricopa County Public Defense Services Carol Lamoureux, Law Office of Hernandez & Hamilton, PC, Tucson, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice JUSTICE CRUZ authored the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE LOPEZ and JUSTICES BOLICK, BEENE, MONTGOMERY, and KING joined. JUSTICE CRUZ, Opinion of the Court: ¶1 This case requires us to determine whether a claim of prosecutorial error depends upon proof of the prosecutor’s state of mind and whether the court of appeals correctly applied the governing standard. We hold that establishing prosecutorial error does not require consideration of the prosecutor’s mental state. Although Dimitri Polanco Romero demonstrated the existence of prosecutorial error in his trial, he has not shown—under a proper application of the framework set forth in State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 (2018)—that the cumulative error so profoundly distorted the proceedings as to render his trial fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions and sentences. BACKGROUND ¶2 In September 2020, a fight broke out at a nightclub parking lot around two o’clock in the morning. Several shots were fired, and the victim, S.H., suffered and later died from gunshot wounds. ¶3 A nearby Pima County sheriff’s deputy responded after hearing the gunfire. As the deputy approached in his vehicle, he saw a car leave the nightclub parking lot and commit multiple traffic violations; he also saw that the driver was holding a black object. The deputy attempted a traffic stop, but the vehicle fled, leading officers on a four-mile pursuit before it struck a fence. The officers identified Romero as the driver and arrested him at the scene. They recovered a black firearm from the vehicle and found a plastic bag containing cocaine on Romero’s person. ¶4 During their investigation, detectives obtained “grainy” 2  STATE V. ROMERO Opinion of the Court surveillance footage of the nightclub exit and the parking lot. The footage depicted S.H. and someone later identified as Romero standing in the parking lot. It showed Romero following the victim and firing shots “in [the victim’s] direction multiple times before leaving.” Around this time, other individuals shot their guns into the air, purportedly to disperse bystanders. ¶5