IN RE JAHVON S.

 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 FILED BY CLERK MAR 30 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN RE JAHVON S. 2 CA-JV 2011-0130 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. 16516802 Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Susan C. L. Kelly H O W A R D, Chief Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant ¶1 After a delinquency hearing, the juvenile court found Jahvon S. had committed aggravated assault causing temporary but substantial disfigurement, aggravated assault of a teacher, assault, disorderly conduct (domestic violence), criminal damage, and five counts of threatening or intimidating. The court adjudicated him delinquent, placed him on a twelve-month term of probation, and ordered that he pay $239.48 in restitution. ¶2 Jahvon s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asking this court to review the entire record for error. See In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485 87, 788 P.2d 1235, 1236-38 (App. 1989) (affording juveniles adjudicated delinquent Anders-type review on appeal). As an arguable issue, counsel asks us to consider whether the juvenile court erred in precluding a defense witness. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court s adjudication, see In re Julio L., 197 Ariz. 1, ¶ 6, 3 P.3d 383, 385 (2000), we find sufficient evidence supported the court s findings that Jahvon had committed the offenses listed above. In May 2011, Jahvon, a junior high school student, threatened a fellow student on campus, who reported his conduct to an assistant principal. The principal found Jahvon walking in a very[,] very aggressive . . . manner toward the student s classroom and directed him to stop, but Jahvon walked away, threatening several school employees and ultimately engaging in a physical altercation with a campus monitor that resulted in a serious injury to the monitor s right arm and the monitor s prescription glasses being damaged beyond repair. 2 ¶4 We conclude the arguable issue proposed by counsel is meritless. On the second day of the adjudication hearing, Jahvon s counsel informed the juvenile court that a disclosed witness, James Fish, an assistant superintendent of the school district, was not available to testify that day. Counsel requested a continuance to have Fish testify. The court asked whether Fish was a percipient witness and whether he had been at the school and see[n] anything. Counsel acknowledged Fish had not witnessed the incidents but instead had conducted a formal investigation and made some determinations on behalf of [the school district] as to the entire incident and the behavior of all the principal parties. Counsel made an offer of proof regarding Fish s testimony, stating he would testify that school personnel had acted improperly in attempting to restrain Jahvon. The court determined that evidence was not relevant to the charges or any defense to those charges. ¶5 We agree with the juvenile court that nothing in the proposed testimony would have been relevant to whether Jahvon had committed the charged offenses or had any valid defense to those offenses. See Ariz. R. Evid. 402 ( Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. ), 401 (evidence relevant if it tend[s] to make a fact [of consequence in determining the action] more or less probable than it would be without the evidence ).1 And, in any event, Fish s testimony would have been largely cumulative to the testimony of an academic specialist at the school who stated that normal protocol required that employees of the district [a]re not to put [their] hands on a student, unless it s in a 1 Although Jahvon s hearing occurred in October 2011, we cite the current versions of the Rules of Evidence throughout this decision, as the relevant rules have undergone merely stylistic changes. See Ariz. R. Evid. 401 cmt. 2012, 402 cmt. 2012, 403 cmt. 2012. 3 therapeutic manner or if it s to prevent harm to self or others at the moment. See Ariz. R. Evid. 403 (court may exclude relevant evidence if needlessly . . . cumulative ). Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding Fish from testifying. See State v. Spoon, 137 Ariz. 105, 111, 669 P.2d 83, 89 (1983) ( Reasonable discretion is given to the trial court in determining relevancy of offered evidence, and such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly has been abused. ). ¶6 We have searched the record as requested and find no reversible error. Therefore, the juvenile court s order adjudicating Jahvon delinquent and its disposition are affirmed. We observe, however, that we find no evidence supporting the state s allegation that the disorderly conduct charge constituted a domestic violence offense pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3601. The court did not refer to that allegation in its findings at either the adjudication or disposition hearings, and we modify the court s adjudication and disposition minute entries to omit the domestic violence reference. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge 4

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.