Arizona Court Rules: ‘No Snitching’ Can Land You in Felony Intimidation Trouble

In a recent ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals clarified the legal implications of intimidation in criminal cases, confirming that encouraging fear or silence among witnesses constitutes obstruction of justice. This decision stems from the case of Donovan Larriba-Tucker, convicted of first-degree murder and related charges in the fatal stabbing of a 16-year-old Chino Valley High School student in 2018.

Larriba-Tucker’s violent act arose from a dispute involving his younger brother’s romantic interest. During a confrontation involving several teenagers, Larriba-Tucker approached a boy associated with the opposing group and stabbed him seven times. The victim subsequently succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.

Following the assault, evidence revealed that Larriba-Tucker attempted to intimidate his companions, urging them against cooperating with law enforcement. He explicitly told them, “no snitching,” which one of the witnesses later testified sent “chills down (his) spine.” The court noted that such language carries an undeniable threat, influencing the friends’ decision to initially fabricate their accounts to police.

A three-judge panel of the appellate court affirmed that Larriba-Tucker’s coercive actions qualified as intimidating, effectively obstructing the investigation. Judge Kent Cattani highlighted the significant weight of the term “snitch,” which inherently implies repercussions for revealing information.

Nevertheless, in a partial victory for Larriba-Tucker, the court overturned his conviction for tampering with physical evidence. The ruling indicated that the law necessitates proof of knowledge concerning an impending “official proceeding.” The judges noted that an ongoing police investigation did not meet the statutory definition of such a proceeding, emphasizing a legislative omission in encompassing investigations within the tampering statute.

The court’s decision underscores the legal boundaries associated with witness intimidation and the specific requirements necessary for charges relating to evidence tampering in Arizona.