NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee

,

v.

LEO DAWES, JR.

, Appellant

.

No s . CR 12

- 0727

, CR 12

- 0733 (Consolidated)

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No s . CR2007

- 181659

- 001 , CR2011

- 135132

- 001 The Honorable Karen A. Mullins

, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Jana Zinman Counsel for Appell ant

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office

, Phoenix By Terry Reid C ounsel for Appell eeSTATE v. DAWES
Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

G O U L D
, Judge:

¶1 Leo Dawes, Jr. (“Appellant”) appeals from his conviction and sentence for misconduct i nvolving weapons, a class 4 felony. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that brass knuckles are a deadly weapon within the meaning of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section s 13

- 3101(A)(1),

- 3102(A)(4). We

c onclude there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine that brass knuckles are a deadly weapon and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated assault and one count of misconduct involving weapons for p unching his wife’s nephew in the face with brass knuckles. 1 The court sentenced Appellant

to consecutive terms of 11.25 years for aggravated assault and 10 years for misconduct involving weapons

.

DISCUSSION

¶3 Appellant challenges his conviction for misconduct involving weapons

, argu ing there was in sufficient evidence showing that the brass knuckles are a deadly weapon. We will reverse a trial court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal “only if there is a complete absence of ‘substantial evidence’ to support the conviction.” State v. Cox

, 214 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 8, 155 P.3d 357, 359 (App. 2007) (citing State v. Sullivan , 187 Ariz. 599, 603, 931 P.2d 1109, 1113 (App. 1996)

. We review

1 At the time of the incident, Appellant was on probation as a result of pleading guilty to one count of aggravated DUI, a class 4 felony. Upon receiving the guilty verdicts, the court revoked Appellant’s probation in the DUI case, and sentenced him to 2.5 years, consecutive to the assault and weapon misconduct sentences.STATE v. DAWES
Decision of the Court

3 the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. State v. Bible

, 175 Ariz. 549, 595, 858 P.2d 1152, 1198 (1993). “To set aside a jury verdic t for insufficient evidence it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.” State v. Arredond o , 155 Ariz. 314, 316, 746 P.2d 484, 486 (1987).

¶4 We do not reweigh the evidence; “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential element s of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. West , 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16, 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011) (citing State v. Mathers , 165 Ariz. 64, 66, 796 P.2d 866, 868 (1990)). In determining whether the proof was such that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate to support “a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” i d. , we consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. See Bible , 175 Ariz. at 560 n.1, 858 P.2d at 1163 n.1.

¶5 To convict Appellant of misconduct involvin g weapons, the State needed to show he possessed a deadly or prohibited weapon and he was a prohibited possessor. See A.R.S. § 13

- 3102(A)(4). Appellant only challenges whether the evidence showed the brass knuckles were a deadly

weapon. Section 13

- 3101 (A) (1) defines “deadly weapon” as “anything that is designed for lethal use.” Whether an object is a deadly weapon is left to the jury. State v. Caldera , 141 Ariz. 634, 637, 688 P.2d 642, 645 (1984) ( “[T]he determination of whether or not an object is a deadly or dangerous weapon is a jury question.”); State v. Bustamonte , 122 Ariz. 105, 107, 593 P.2d 659, 661 (1979) (“[I]f a weapon’s deadly character depends on the manner and circumstances of its use, it is for the jury to determine if it is a deadly wea pon.”).

¶6 Our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that brass knuckles are a deadly weapon. The jury was instructed regarding the elements of the offense and the statutory definition of “ deadly weapon. ” Dr. Gear , an emergency room physician who treated the victim, testified that brass knuckles cause blunt trauma injuries which will cause bruising and can result in “ deep damage. ” He explained that brass knuckles are used to increase the force of the blows and the hardness of a person’s fist. Dr. Mouritsen, another emergency room physician who treated the victim, testified that because the victim was hit with brass knuckles

, he ordered a CT scan of the victim’s head, neck and facial bones to examine him for possib le brain injur ies

.STATE v. DAWES
Decision of the Court

4 ¶7 In addition, t h e officer who responded to the scene testified that the victim was unresponsive when he arrived; he was bleeding from his nose, his cheek was cut, and his face was so swollen the officer thought his jaw was broken. The State also presented photographs of the victim showing his bloody nose, facial swelling, and a laceration below the victim’s left eye.

¶8 Accordingly, we conclude there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer that brass knuckles ar e designed to be used to make the wearer’s blows lethal, especially when swung at the victim’s head and face as in this case

.

CONCLUSION

¶9 For these reasons, we affirm Appellant’s conviction and

sentence.