State v. Freestone

── State v. Freestone ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: June 08, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. COLLIN BURKE FREESTONE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0312 FILED 06-08-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2019-154050-001 The Honorable Laura Johnson Giaquinto, Commissioner AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Michael J. Woodburn Counsel for Appellee Brown & Little, PLC, Chandler By Matthew O. Brown Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. FREESTONE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Veronika Fabian joined. H O W E, Judge: ¶1 Collin Freestone appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated driving while under the influence, a class 4 felony. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 On April 21, 2019, around 2:00 a.m., an officer noticed a car drifting from side to side on the road. While observing the car, he noticed it drift into the bike lane twice for “about 100 feet” the first time and “approximately 175 feet” the second time. The officer stopped the car, which Freestone was driving with no passengers. Freestone told the officer that “he didn’t have his driver’s license because it was revoked” and that “he had last smoked marijuana about five or six hours prior.” The officer arrested Freestone and searched his car before towing it. In the car the officer found “a hand-rolled marijuana cigarette, a joint” that was “burnt” and “still smoldering.” ¶3 The State indicted Freestone on two counts of aggravated driving while under the influence, class 4 felonies. It later dismissed the second count. Before trial, Freestone repeatedly failed to appear, prompting the court to issue several arrest warrants. At trial on the remaining count Freestone again failed to appear. After Freestone’s counsel proffered that he informed him of the date, time, and location of trial, the court found that Freestone’s absence was voluntary and proceeded with trial. ¶4 During jury selection, prospective juror three informed the court she was an undergraduate student “currently studying criminology and psychology.” When asked if “[a]nything about that that would impact your ability to serve as a juror” she responded “I do believe that it would make me not fair or impartial.” The juror then explained that she “aspir[ed] to be a defense attorney” and believed she tended to be biased in favor of the defense. The court then explained the trial process and asked the juror if she would be able to “follow the instructions on the law that [it] will give you” to which the juror replied “I think I would.” The court continued by 2  STATE v. FREESTONE Decision of the Court asking if the juror’s career goals “automatically mean that you’re going to lean towards defense?” The juror replied “[n]ot as, like, a oh, I’m going into it already on the defense side. It’s more so I’m looking at a perspective from the defense side, seeing if the charges presented are as fair as they are.” ¶5 Outside the presence of the jury, the court told counsel “[j]uror No. 3 [it] would dismiss for cause. Any objection?” Freestone’s counsel objected: I understand the Court’s procl