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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY WINDFIELD ANDERSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0506

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CR201200646

The Honorable Dan Slayton, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Misty D. Guille

Counsel for Appellee

Coconino County Public Defender’s Office, Flagstaff

By Brad Bransky

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ANDERSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence for one 

count of sexual conduct with a minor. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2005, while Defendant was 23 years old, he engaged in a 

sexual relationship with the victim, his 15-year-old cousin. As a result of 

the sexual relationship, the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a son. 

Six years later, the victim reported the relationship to the police and 

Defendant was indicted for one count of sexual conduct with a minor, a 

class six felony. 

¶3 At trial, the victim testified that Defendant knew she was a 

minor and that he told her he wanted to impregnate her so that she would 

be undesirable to anyone else. The victim also testified that Defendant was 

her only sexual partner prior to the birth of her son and that Defendant 

admitted to her that he was the father of her son. The State also presented 

DNA evidence showing a complete match between Defendant’s DNA and 

that of the victim’s son. 

¶4 Defendant was convicted; the court suspended imposition of 

sentence and placed Defendant on probation. Defendant timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶5 In the trial court, Defendant did not object to either of the 

claimed errors from which he now appeals; accordingly, we review for 

fundamental error. State v. Smith, 219 Ariz. 132, 136, ¶ 21 (2008). To prevail 

under fundamental error review, Defendant must establish that “(1) error 

exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” 

Id.
STATE v. ANDERSON

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 Defendant claims that the detective offered improper expert 

profile evidence when he testified that sexual abuse victims typically delay 

reporting the crime. 

¶7 Defendant has failed to establish error. Here, the detective 

did not testify that the victim’s delay in reporting indicated she was, in fact, 

a victim of sexual abuse; rather, he was explaining why he did not ask for 

an explanation of the six-year delay in reporting. 

¶8 Even if the detective’s testimony is viewed as expert 

testimony, “[t]estimony describing behavioral characteristics or conduct 

outside jurors’ common experience is permitted.” State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 

378, 384 (1986). Because the detective generally explained the behavior 

displayed by child sexual-abuse victims without opining as to whether the 

present victim’s behavior indicated she in fact suffered sexual abuse, it was 

permissible expert testimony. Id. 

¶9 Defendant has also failed to show prejudice. The victim’s 

testimony, coupled with DNA evidence showing that Defendant is the

father of her son, are overwhelming evidence of guilt. See State v. Lindsey, 

149 Ariz. 472, 477-78 (1986) (affirming convictions on counts supported by 

overwhelming evidence even though improper expert testimony was 

admitted). 

¶10 Defendant next argues the prosecutor improperly sought to 

inflame the jury’s passion during closing argument. 

¶11 “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a 

defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct ‘so infected 

the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due 

process.’” State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 335, ¶ 46 (2007) (quoting State v. 

Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72, 79, ¶ 26 (1998)). To determine if a prosecutor’s 

comments during closing argument constitute misconduct, the court will 

consider whether the “statements called to the jury’s attention matters it 

should not have considered in reaching its decision” and “the probability 

that the jurors were in fact influenced by the remarks.” State v. Newell, 212 

Ariz. 389, 402, ¶ 60 (2006).

¶12 There is no error. The prosecutor’s statements that Defendant 

should have considered the impact his actions would have on the victim 

sought to highlight the fact that Defendant was 23, an adult, and the victim 

was 15, a minor. The ages of Defendant and the victim were material issues 

for the jury to consider in reaching its verdict. 
STATE v. ANDERSON

Decision of the Court

4

¶13 Furthermore, Defendant has not shown prejudice. Given the 

overwhelming evidence of Defendant’s guilt, there is no reasonable 

likelihood that these statements affected the jury’s verdict. The victim gave 

birth to the child when she was a minor, the child’s DNA was a complete 

match to Defendant’s DNA, and the victim testified that Defendant was the 

only person with whom she had a sexual relationship during the time in 

question. Based on the evidence presented at trial, Defendant cannot show 

his conviction resulted from anything other than direct evidence of his 

guilt.

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the reasons above, Defendant’s conviction and resulting 

sentence are affirmed.