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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

WILLIE JOHNSON, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0183 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-155668-001 

The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Eric Knobloch

Counsel for Appellee 

The Susser Law Firm PLLC, Chandler

By Adam M. Susser

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 1-28-2021
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Willie Nathan Johnson appeals his conviction and 

sentence for first-degree murder in the death of his aunt, G.W.1 Because 

sufficient evidence supports the verdict, we affirm. 

FACTS2 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 G.W. was found stabbed to death in her home in September 

2002, by her niece, C.B. When C.B. arrived at G.W.’s house that day, she 

noticed G.W.’s car was not in the driveway and the front door was 

unlocked. C.B. had last spoken to G.W. two days before. On that day,

neighbors reported seeing a black male outside G.W.’s home who appeared 

to be 30 to 32 years old, approximately 5’8” tall and 180 pounds, with an 

acne-scarred face and wearing a white shirt, white shorts, and a white 

baseball hat with a red underbill. This physical description generally 

matched Johnson.

¶3 The day before G.W.’s body was discovered, her car was 

found abandoned in an apartment parking lot about five miles from her

home with the keys inside. A search of the car uncovered a clump of hair, 

two pairs of men’s underwear, and a blood-stained knife that was wedged 

between the driver and passenger seats and covered by tissues and a plastic 

bag. DNA testing linked Johnson to the knife and other items inside the 

car. In addition, his fingerprint was found on a drinking glass in G.W.’s 

kitchen and on a window of her car. 

1 We use initials to protect the victim’s privacy. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(i);

State v. Maldonado, 206 Ariz. 339, 341, ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2003). 

2 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Johnson. State 

v. Karr, 221 Ariz. 319, 320, ¶ 2 (App. 2008). 
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

3 

¶4 Ten years after G.W. died, the State charged Johnson with

first-degree murder, a Class 1 felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1105 under 

alternative theories of felony murder and premeditated murder. After a 24-

day trial, the jury found Johnson guilty of the charged offense. Johnson was 

sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

¶5 We have jurisdiction over Johnson’s timely appeal pursuant 

to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised 

Statutes §§ 12–120.21(A)(1), 13–4031, and –4033(A). 

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal, the only argument Johnson raises is that the 

evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We review the 

sufficiency of the evidence de novo. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 

(2011). We will not set aside a conviction for insufficient evidence “unless 

there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” State v. 

Young, 223 Ariz. 447, 450, ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (quoting State v. Scott, 187 Ariz. 

474, 477 (App. 1996)). “Substantial evidence is more than a ‘mere scintilla’ 

and is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a 

guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting State v. Hughes, 189 

Ariz. 62, 73 (1997)). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

State and determine whether “a rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting 

State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 423, ¶ 43 (2003)). We consider both direct 

and circumstantial evidence in determining whether substantial evidence 

supports the conviction. West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16. 

¶7 To prove felony murder, the State had to establish that

Johnson committed or attempted to commit a burglary, and, in the course 

of and in furtherance of the burglary or immediate flight from the burglary, 

Johnson or another person caused G.W.’s death. See A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2). 

To prove premeditated murder, the State had to demonstrate: (1) Johnson 

intended or knew that his conduct would cause death; (2) Johnson caused 

the death of G.W.; and (3) Johnson’s actions were premeditated. See id. at 

(A)(1). 

¶8 For the felony murder theory, the State alleged Johnson 

caused G.W.’s death in the course of or in furtherance of his burglary of her 

car. The State presented ample evidence to support that theory. The 

evidence showed that, after G.W. was killed, her car was found abandoned 

at a nearby apartment complex with the keys inside. DNA testing 

established that the clump of hair found in the car was G.W.’s. DNA testing 
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

4 

also revealed her blood on the knife’s blade. Testing of the knife’s handle 

showed the presence of DNA from at least two persons, including G.W. and 

Johnson. DNA testing could not exclude Johnson or G.W. as a contributor 

to the DNA mixture found on one set of the men’s underwear. Finally, as 

noted, a fingerprint found on the outside of the driver’s side window 

matched Johnson’s left index finger.

¶9 G.W.’s neighbors told police that a person matching 

Johnson’s description was standing outside G.W.’s home two days before 

her body was discovered. Then, in the days after G.W was killed, a 

neighbor observed Johnson wearing a white baseball hat with a red 

underbill, which looked like the hat worn by the man neighbors had seen 

outside G.W.’s home before she was killed. Additionally, Johnson’s 

fingerprint was found on a glass in G.W.’s kitchen. C.B. testified that G.W. 

kept a very tidy home, and it would have been unusual for her to leave a 

glass on the kitchen table after a guest had left. Moreover, C.B. testified 

Johnson said he had been to G.W.’s home a few days before she died to 

change the oil in her car, and a detective testified that bloody shoeprints 

found inside G.W.’s home resembled oily shoeprints found on her 

driveway. Investigators also found no signs of forced entry, and C.B. 

testified her aunt would not allow strangers into her home or leave the 

entry door unlocked.

¶10 The State also presented evidence that Johnson wanted 

G.W.’s car. C.B. testified that a few days after G.W.’s death, Johnson asked 

her to give him the car. A neighbor similarly reported that Johnson asked 

about G.W.’s car after her death. From this evidence, the jury could 

conclude that Johnson intended to steal G.W.’s car. 

¶11 As to the premeditated murder theory, the evidence showed 

that G.W. was stabbed ten times and had eight other cuts on her body. A 

pathologist testified her wounds were likely caused by a single-edged knife 

blade more consistent with a kitchen knife than a military knife. Although 

the knife found in G.W.’s car was not specifically identified as the murder 

weapon, the length of the knife’s blade was consistent with the type of knife 

used to inflict her wounds. Based on this evidence, the jury could 

reasonably conclude the knife found in her car containing Johnson’s DNA 

was the murder weapon. And it could infer Johnson’s intent to kill G.W. 

from the number of stab wounds. See State v. Riley, 248 Ariz. 154, 189, ¶ 137 

(2020) (noting the jury could properly infer intent to murder based on the 

location and number of stab wounds). 
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

5 

¶12 Johnson argues that the State’s evidence is circumstantial and 

could have been explained by “a variety of possible highly innocent 

explanations” and that, in the absence of a confession or a witness to the 

crime, the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the State and resolve all reasonable 

inferences against Johnson. See Young, 223 Ariz. at 450, ¶ 12; Karr, 221 Ariz. 

at 320, ¶ 2. Moreover, circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support 

a conviction. See State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, 407-08, ¶¶ 69-73 (2013); see 

also West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16. 

¶13 Johnson argues the State failed to establish when or how his 

DNA was left on the knife handle or the underwear recovered from G.W.’s 

car or when his fingerprints were left on the car window and the drinking 

glass. He argues that the timing is important given that he had visited 

G.W.’s house over the course of many years, including a visit just days 

before the murder to work on her car. “[W]e do not reweigh evidence; that 

is the function of the jury.” State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228, 231, ¶ 6 (App. 

2004). Based on the evidence recounted above, a rational trier of fact could 

have found the essential elements of first-degree murder under either 

theory beyond a reasonable doubt. See Young, 223 Ariz. at 450, ¶ 12. 

CONCLUSION

¶14 Because sufficient evidence supports Johnson’s conviction, 

we affirm.