State v. Eggers

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ROBERT MARSHALL EGGERS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 03/13/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CR 10-0908 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2008-171634-001 SE The Honorable Samuel A. Thumma, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section/Capital Litigation Section Joseph T. Maziarz, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Karen M. Noble, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant J O H N S E N, Judge Phoenix ¶1 assault Robert and Eggers the appeals resulting his conviction sentence. For of the aggravated reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Witnesses testified Eggers approached the victim on a sidewalk and punched him in the face. 1 The victim fell to the ground, but Eggers continued to punch and kick him. injuries, the victim suffered a fractured jaw Among other his right mandible. ¶3 Eggers was charged with aggravated assault, a Class 4 felony. After a four-day trial, the jury found Eggers guilty. The court suspended sentence and placed Eggers on probation for four years. ¶4 Eggers timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033 (2012). 2 DISCUSSION ¶5 Aggravated assault as charged in the complaint is assault by any means of force that causes . . . a fracture of 1 Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all inferences against Eggers. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). 2 Absent material revisions after the date of the offense, we cite a statute s current Westlaw version. 2 any body part. argues the See A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(3) (2012). superior court erred by denying his Eggers motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence that he caused the victim s jaw fracture. He argues the superior court should have reduced the charge to simple assault. See A.R.S. § 13-1203 (2012). ¶6 Under defendant verdict may if Arizona move there conviction. for Rule is a no of Criminal judgment of substantial Procedure evidence Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a). to the before acquittal 20, the warrant a We review the superior court s denial of a Rule 20 motion for abuse of discretion and will reverse only when there is a complete substantial evidence to support the charges. 199 Ariz. 273, 276, ¶ 7, 17 P.3d 118, absence of State v. Carlos, 121 (App. 2001). Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (quoting State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, 610 P.2d 51, 53 (1980)). If reasonable minds could differ on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, the motion for judgment of acquittal must be denied. State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 287, ¶ 6, 69 P.3d 1006, 1008 (App. 2003). Both direct and circumstantial evidence may support a conviction, and 3 [a] conviction alone. may be sustained on circumstantial evidence State v. Blevins, 128 Ariz. 64, 67, 623 P.2d 853, 856 (App. 1981). ¶7 Eggers does not dispute that he assaulted the victim or that the victim s jaw was fractured. there is insufficient fracture. evidence that He argues only that what he did caused the See A.R.S. § 13-203(A) (2012) ( Conduct is the cause of a result when . . . [b]ut for the conduct the result in question would not have occurred [and] [t]he relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the statute defining the offense. ). ¶8 Contrary to Eggers s contention, the record contains substantial evidence from which a jury could infer reasonable doubt that Eggers caused the fracture. testified Eggers punched him in the face. remembered testified nothing that after after the that first victim fell a The victim Although the victim punch, to beyond other the witnesses ground, Eggers punched him in the face multiple times and kicked him in the head. A police officer who responded testified the victim was lying on the ground with multiple lacerations on his face and ear, bleeding from his face, nose and ear. The officer also testified that the right side of the victim s face, the same side with the fractured jaw, was bleeding profusely. 4 ¶9 day A radiologist testified that in a CT scan taken the of the assault, happened. He further the fracture testified appeared that to although have the just fracture could have been up to a week old, it would have been painful. The fracture could have resulted from a punch anywhere on the jaw, including the other side of the victim s face. ¶10 Eggers argues the State failed to call the treating physician causation. or an emergency room doctor to testify about But other testimony that Eggers punched and kicked the victim in the head and the radiologist s testimony that the fracture was recent and could have been caused by force applied anywhere on the mandible constituted sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find causation beyond a reasonable doubt. See Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 67, 796 P.2d at 869. Eggers also notes that medical personnel did not wire shut the victim s jaw until two weeks after the incident, suggesting the fracture could have been caused by some event after the fact. But the record contains no evidence of any other incident involving the victim that might have caused the fracture. 5 CONCLUSION ¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction and the resulting imposition of probation. /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ DONN KESSLER, Judge /s/ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.