State v. Cox

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. ) ) RICHARD DELBERT COX, ) ) Appellant. ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/22/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 11-0071 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-123144-001DT The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section And Angela Corinne Kebric, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Janelle A. McEachern Chandler Attorney for Appellant ________________________________________________________________ O R O Z C O, Judge ¶1 Appellant Richard Delbert Cox (Defendant) appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault. He argues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; evidence and to (2) the State failed support the jury s to present verdict. For the sufficient following reasons, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY ¶2 On April 9, 2010, Defendant was at the residence of David L. and Maureen E. because Maureen asked Defendant for help after she had an argument with David. While at the residence, Defendant was involved in an altercation with David, during which he stabbed David with a knife. ¶3 Defendant assault, a class was 3 charged dangerous with one felony. count At of trial, aggravated Defendant admitted to stabbing David but asserted a justification of selfdefense. During the State s case-in-chief, David testified that Defendant stabbed him without provocation while the two men were leaving the residence in the course of an argument. The other persons present during the incident also testified, although none of them witnessed the actual stabbing or the events immediately preceding. At the conclusion of the State s case, Defendant made a Rule 20 motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. ¶4 Defendant then testified in his own defense. According to Defendant, David was upset and angry while Defendant was at 2 the residence. When Defendant attempted to leave, David confronted him in an aggressive manner and began yelling and pointing a screwdriver in Defendant s face. As Defendant was leaving, he was struck from behind, causing him to fall and see[] stars. Believing David had hit him, Defendant continued to communicate his intent to leave and grabbed a knife that was laying on the ground in order to deter David. ¶5 According to Defendant, he was then attacked by David and David s Rottweiler. Defendant stood up with the knife and told David to get back, but David began to thrash[] around with his arm in an apparent attempt to hit [Defendant] in the head. At that point, Defendant testified that he was thinking: I m going to either have to pull [the knife] out and kill him or get out of here. Defendant spun and took about three steps, and then David ran into [Defendant] and [David] didn t even know the knife was there. Defendant heard David say, I can t believe you stabbed me, but Defendant testified that he was unaware David had been injured and he left the residence. ¶6 A jury found Defendant guilty. The trial court sentenced him to the presumptive term of 7.5 years imprisonment, with 261 days of pre-sentence incarceration credit. filed a timely notice of appeal. Defendant We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona 3 Revised Statues (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21.A.1 (2003), 13-4031 (2010) and 13-4033.A.1 (2010). DISCUSSION ¶7 Defendant makes two arguments on appeal. He first contends the trial court erred in denying his Rule 20 motion for judgment of acquittal. He next argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the jury s guilty verdict. We address each argument in turn. Judgment of Acquittal ¶8 for We review de novo the trial court's ruling on a motion judgment of acquittal and also independently court s constitutional and legal conclusions. review the State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15, 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011) (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 595, 858 P.2d 1152, 1198 (1993)); State v. Gay, 214 Ariz. 214, 217, ¶ 4, 150 P.3d 787, 790 (App. 2007). Judgment of acquittal is appropriate when there is no substantial evidence to support reasonable doubt. each element of the offense beyond a Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20.a; State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990). Substantial evidence is such proof as a reasonable mind would employ to support the conclusion reached, and if reasonable persons could differ as to whether the evidence establishes evidence is substantial. a fact in issue, then the State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 553, 633 P.2d 355, 362 (1981) (citation omitted). 4 In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand a Rule 20 motion, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Mincey, 141 Ariz. 425, 432, 687 P.2d 1180, 1187 (1984). ¶9 Defendant contends his Rule 20 motion should have been granted because he asserted a justification of self-defense and the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not justified in using deadly physical force against the victim. Defendant correctly argues that when the jury is presented with the slightest defense, reasonable the evidence State doubt justification. that bears that the the the defendant burden of defendant acted proving did in self- beyond not act a with See A.R.S. § 13-205.A (2010); State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87, 90, ¶ 14, 235 P.3d 240, 243 (2010) (citing State v. Lujan, 136 Ariz. 102, 104, 664, P.2d 646, 648 (1983)). Assuming that Defendant elicited sufficient evidence during the State s case in chief for a juror to reasonably infer that he acted in self-defense, unprovoked David s created a testimony jury that question Defendant s as to attack whether was Defendant reasonably acted in self-defense. See State v. Johnson, 108 Ariz. 42, 43, 492 P.2d 703, 704 (1972). David s testimony, therefore, constituted substantial evidence sufficient to allow the State to overcome Defendant s Rule 20 motion, and the trial court did 5 not err in denying his motion on this basis. See Tison, 129 Ariz. at 553, 633 P.2d at 362. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶10 We review claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. Bible, 175 Ariz. at 595, 858 P.2d at 1198. However, [t]o set aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient jury. evidence to support the conclusion reached by the State v. Arredondo, 155 Ariz. 314, 316, 746 P.2d 484, 486 (1987). Accordingly, we will reverse only when there was a complete lack verdict. State v. Girdler, 138 Ariz. 482, 488, 675 P.2d 1301, 1307 (1983). of probative evidence supporting the jury s In addition, we will not re-weigh the evidence and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, resolving all conflicts against the defendant. Id.; Mincey, 141 Ariz. at 432, 687 P.2d at 1187. ¶11 Defendant argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was not justified in using deadly physical force against David. See A.R.S. § 13-205.A; King, 225 Ariz. at 90, ¶ 14, 235 P.3d at 243. ¶12 Although self-defense version of and the Defendant that events he was testified used that reasonable contradicted 6 by he acted force, David s only in Defendant s testimony. According to David, residence during as their he and Defendant argument, were Defendant produced a knife and stabbed David. leaving turned the around, David testified that the attack was unprovoked, stating that he never even saw the blade coming and that he didn t even have time to react. David also testified that he was neither holding a weapon nor had access to one and that he did not verbally or physically threaten Defendant before Defendant stabbed him. ¶13 It is the duty of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. Ariz. 160, 162, 608 P.2d 299, 301 (1980). defendant claims self-defense, the jury State v. Brown, 125 Furthermore, when a must also determine whether the defendant was justified in using force and whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. See Johnson, 108 Ariz. at 43, 492 P.2d at 704; Everett v. State, 88 Ariz. 293, 299, 356 P.2d 394, 398 (1960). ¶14 to Accordingly, it was the role of the jury in this case resolve the conflict in evidence justifiably acted in self-defense. as to whether Defendant The jury was free to reject Defendant s testimony and draw its own conclusions based on other evidence, including the testimony of the victim. See State v. Williams, 111 Ariz. 175, 177-78, 526 P.2d 714, 716-17 (1974). Based on David s testimony, a rational juror could find that the attack was unprovoked and that Defendant was the aggressor. 7 We thus find the State presented sufficient evidence to support the verdict and allow the jury to reject Defendant s justification defense. CONCLUSION ¶15 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. /S/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ____________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge /S/ ____________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge 8

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.