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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

IN RE RILEY A.

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0321

Appeal from the Superior Court in Apache County

No. S0100JV201900031

The Honorable C. Allan Perkins, Judge Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

R. John Lee, Attorney at Law, St. Johns

By R. John Lee

Counsel for Appellant

Apache County Attorney’s Office, St. Johns

By Celeste Robertson

Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

FILED 7-1-2021
IN RE RILEY A.

Decision of the Court

2

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Riley A. appeals from a superior court order adjudicating him 

delinquent based on one count of making a terrorist threat, one count of 

interfering with an educational institution, and two counts of threatening 

or intimidating. Riley argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that he was delinquent. For reasons that follow, 

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On August 13, 2019, based on a mass shooting threat, Ganado 

High School administrators cancelled all classes at the school. The threat, 

scribbled in pencil in a stall in the boys’ bathroom, read “Mass Shooting 

8/13/19 2:00 PM.”

¶3 Riley had reported the threat to front office staff the previous 

day. The school’s security officer reviewed security camera footage, which 

showed Riley leave his classroom, enter the same boys’ bathroom, reenter 

his classroom, leave the classroom once more, then walk toward the front 

office. As he walked toward the front office, he threw an object under the 

vending machine. School personnel later found a pencil underneath one of 

the vending machines.

¶4 School administrators called the Apache County Sheriff’s 

Office to investigate. Riley told a deputy that after picking up the pencil in 

the boys’ bathroom, he thought it might look suspicious, so he threw it 

under the vending machine. The deputy did not investigate other students 

who entered and exited the bathroom in close proximity to Riley.

¶5 The State charged Riley with the offenses outlined above, and 

the court held a juvenile adjudication hearing in July 2020. Mildred 

McNabb, Riley’s sixth period history teacher, testified regarding Riley’s 

handwriting and his behavior on the day he reported the threat. McNabb 

stated that Riley asked to use the restroom, then returned “about three 

minutes” later “in a panic” and asked permission to go to the front office. 

McNabb further testified (over Riley’s objection) that as his teacher, she was 

familiar with his handwriting, and that the handwriting on the bathroom 

wall looked like Riley’s, particularly the “M” and the “A.”

¶6 At the close of the hearing, after considering the evidence and 

weighing and assessing the witnesses’ credibility, the court found that the 

State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Riley committed the 

charged offenses, and that Riley was delinquent. At disposition, Riley was 
IN RE RILEY A.

Decision of the Court

3

placed on two years’ intensive probation with counseling. Riley appealed, 

and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Riley argues that the evidence was insufficient for the 

superior court to conclude that the handwriting on the bathroom wall was 

his. We will reverse on grounds of insufficient evidence only if “there is a 

complete absence of probative facts to support the judgment or if the 

judgment is contrary to any substantial evidence.” In re John M., 201 Ariz. 

424, 426, ¶ 7 (App. 2001) (citation omitted). We will not reweigh the 

evidence on appeal, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to sustaining the adjudication. In re R.E., 241 Ariz. 359, 360, 361, ¶¶ 5, 8

(App. 2017); In re Julio L., 197 Ariz. 1, 2–3, ¶ 6 (2000).

¶8 Riley does not dispute the court’s finding that someone

committed “terroristic threats . . . disruption of an educational institution, 

[and] threatening or intimidating.” Rather, he challenges the court’s 

finding that he was the one who did so. Here, the record supports the 

court’s conclusion that Riley wrote the threat on the bathroom wall.

¶9 First, McNabb, who was familiar with Riley’s handwriting,

testified that the threat on the bathroom wall seemed to be an improved 

version of Riley’s handwriting. Riley characterizes McNabb’s identification 

of his handwriting as “tenuous,” “feeble,” and “grudging,” but McNabb 

ultimately opined unequivocally, “[i]t is Mr. [A.]” and “it’s his handwriting; 

yes, it is.” See Ariz. R. Evid. 901(b)(2) (allowing a non-expert to authenticate

that the “handwriting is genuine”). Additionally, the State provided, and 

the court considered—as the trier of fact—several examples of Riley’s 

handwriting from his classwork, as well as a photo of the message on the 

bathroom wall.

¶10 Second, although multiple parties testified that the threat was 

hard to read from the photograph, Riley had no difficulty deciphering the 

message and repeating it in his report to school administrators, exactly as it 

appeared on the wall. The superior court noted that “the best report[] of 

what was on that wall comes from [Riley’s] statement; a wall that [the court] 

could barely make out yet he had no question knowing exactly what it 

was.”

¶11 Riley argues that the school should have investigated all other 

students at Ganado High School who may have had an opportunity to write 

the threat. But Riley cites no authority for such an obligation. Moreover, 

the video footage, although not dispositive, provided persuasive evidence 
IN RE RILEY A.

Decision of the Court

4

of Riley’s delinquent acts. The video showed Riley exiting the boys’ 

bathroom, then returning to his classroom, running or walking quickly both 

times. The video shows other students walking through the hallways, but 

none who were running or walking quickly like Riley. Riley told his teacher 

that he needed to go to the front office for an emergency, and on his way 

there, he was clearly captured on camera glancing around then tossing an 

object under a vending machine in the hallway. Later, investigators 

retrieved a lead pencil from under the vending machine. Although Riley

explained that he threw the pencil under the vending machine because “it 

might look suspicious” to have it in his pocket, his anomalous behavior 

could be construed as concealing evidence. Cf. State v. Cutright, 196 Ariz. 

567, 570–71, ¶¶ 12, 14 (App. 1999) (noting that a criminal defendant’s 

manner of leaving the scene or concealing evidence can reveal “a 

consciousness of guilt”), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. Miranda, 

200 Ariz. 67 (2001).

¶12 Taken in total, evidence that the writing on the wall was

similar to Riley’s handwriting, together with Riley’s detailed report of the 

scribbled writing and the video footage showing Riley’s suspicious 

behavior, was sufficient to support the superior court’s delinquency 

adjudication. See In re John M., 201 Ariz. at 427, ¶ 14.

CONCLUSION

¶13 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.