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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARSENIO CARRILLO BUSTOS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0505 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-148672-003

The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix

By Andrew C. Marcy

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 9-12-2019
STATE. v. BUSTOS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Arsenio Carillo Bustos argues that insufficient evidence 

supports his convictions of first-degree murder and four counts of 

aggravated assault. We will reverse a conviction if it is not supported by 

substantial evidence of guilt. State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 133–34, ¶ 65 

(2006). Because substantial evidence supports Bustos’ convictions, we 

affirm.

BACKGROUND1

¶2 After watching a football game together, a group of teenaged

boys walked to a nearby McDonald’s. As they approached the restaurant, 

the boys passed Bustos and Felix German sitting in a blue truck, waiting in 

the drive-through line. Believing the men were staring at them, one of the 

boys approached the truck to confront the men. When the men appeared 

disinterested, the boy quickly concluded that they “didn’t want to fight” 

and proceeded inside the restaurant with his friends.

¶3 A few minutes later, the boys left the restaurant and one of 

the boys noticed the blue truck following them slowly through the parking 

lot. The truck came to a stop, Bustos and German got out of the vehicle, and 

a verbal altercation ensued. When one of the men mentioned a gun, the 

boys “backed off” and everyone left the McDonald’s parking lot. 

¶4 After that heated exchange, the boys purchased other snacks 

and drinks at a nearby convenience store. They then walked toward one of 

their homes and noticed the blue truck pass them on the street. 

Immediately, the truck turned around and drove back toward the boys.

Once the truck came to a stop, Bustos got out of the truck holding a 

handgun and Antonio Libert got out of the truck bed holding a rifle. The

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s

verdict. State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, 542, ¶ 2 n.2 (2013).
STATE. v. BUSTOS

Decision of the Court

3

two men opened fire on the boys, who scattered in search of safety. When 

the smoke cleared, one boy was dead and another had been shot in the leg.

¶5 After an 18-day jury trial, Bustos was found guilty of firstdegree murder and four counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to

prison.

DISCUSSION

¶6 As his sole issue on appeal, Bustos argues that insufficient 

evidence supports his convictions. Specifically, he contends the State failed 

to present reliable evidence that he was involved in the McDonald’s 

altercation or the shooting.

¶7 We review a claim of insufficient evidence de novo. State v. 

West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). Sufficient evidence may be direct or 

circumstantial and “is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as 

adequate” to “support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” State v. Borquez, 232 Ariz. 484, 487, ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2013). 

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “we do not weigh the 

evidence; that is the function of the jury.” State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228, 

231, ¶ 6 (App. 2004). 

¶8 To support his argument, Bustos notes that the only witness 

who identified him as a participant in the altercation and shooting was 

German, the driver. Because German was likewise charged with firstdegree murder and four counts of aggravated assault, but entered a 

testimonial plea agreement, Bustos argues that he had a “strong motive to 

lie to avoid a sentence of natural life.”

¶9 While it is true that none of the surviving victims could 

positively identify Bustos or Libert, the victims’ descriptions of the frontpassenger shooter as heavily tattooed with a “fade” haircut were consistent 

with Bustos’ appearance. Likewise, Bustos’ appearance was consistent with 

a McDonald’s surveillance video that recorded two men having an 

altercation with the boys.

¶10 To the extent Bustos’ contends that German’s testimony was 

unreliable, the jurors had the opportunity to determine whether his 

testimony, which inculpated himself as well as Bustos, was credible. Over 

the course of three days, German testified about the verbal altercation at 

McDonald’s, driving Bustos to a house where he could retrieve a gun, 

Bustos’ phone call to Libert, picking up Libert at the McDonald’s parking 

lot, and canvassing the neighboring area in search of the boys. According 
STATE. v. BUSTOS

Decision of the Court

4

to German, when the men spotted the boys, Bustos and Libert jumped out 

of the truck. Although German ducked below the dashboard after the first 

shot was fired, he saw Bustos get out of the truck with a gun and return to 

the truck with a gun. 

¶11 The State charged both Bustos and Libert with first-degree 

murder and four counts of aggravated assault. The State did not need to 

identify which of the men fired the shots that killed or injured two of the 

boys. A person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person if, 

acting with intent, the person aids the other person’s commission of the 

offense. See A.R.S. §§ 13-301, -303. Thus, the State may prove a “defendant’s 

criminal liability for a substantive criminal offense” by showing the 

defendant aided “the commission of that offense by a principal.” State v. 

Korovkin, 202 Ariz. 493, 497, ¶ 12 (App. 2002). 

¶12 In this case, the State provided ample evidence that two 

armed men got out of the truck and opened fire on the boys. The superior 

court instructed the jurors on accomplice liability and the evidence 

supported a finding that Bustos was guilty of the charged offenses, either 

as the principal or an accomplice. The jury heard about German’s purported 

motivation to lie—his plea agreement capping his prison exposure to no 

more than 12 years if he testified truthfully at the trial against Bustos—and 

ultimately determined his credibility. On this record, sufficient evidence 

exists from which a reasonable jury could find that Bustos, acting in concert 

with Libert, shot the boys, placing each in apprehension of imminent 

physical injury, seriously injuring one, and killing another.

CONCLUSION

¶13 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.