NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS 

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

LEO DAWES, JR., Appellant.

Nos. CR 12-0727, CR 12-0733 

(Consolidated)

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. 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 Appellant

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Terry Reid

Counsel for Appellee
STATE 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 involving 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.”) sections 13-3101(A)(1), -3102(A)(4). We 

conclude 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 punching 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, arguing there was insufficient 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 verdict 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. 

Arredondo, 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 

elements 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,” id., 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 involving 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 weapon.”).

¶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 possible brain 

injuries. 
STATE v. DAWES

Decision of the Court

4

¶7 In addition, the 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 are 

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.