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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

IN RE ISAIAH A.

No. 1 CA-JV 17-0241

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JV200857

The Honorable Colleen L. French, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A., Phoenix

By Woodrow C. Thompson, Hannah H. Porter

Counsel for Appellant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Andrea L. Kever

Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.

FILED 10-17-2017
IN RE ISAIAH A.

Decision of the Court

2

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Isaiah A. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for one 

count of child molestation against the victim (“Victim”), claiming it was 

unsupported by sufficient evidence. Because we find sufficient evidence to 

uphold the adjudication, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In June 2014, Victim’s mother, a chiropractor, went to Sarah 

A.’s house to perform an adjustment on Sarah’s newborn daughter. 

Victim’s mother brought along her three children, including Victim, then 

six years old. Sarah had been the mother’s client and friend for several 

years, and Victim’s mother had met Sarah’s children, including Isaiah and 

his brother Carman. Victim’s mother had adjusted both Isaiah and Carman

in the past.

¶3 Isaiah let Victim’s mother in the house, and while the mother 

went upstairs to perform the adjustment, Victim and her two brothers 

stayed downstairs to play. Victim’s mother was upstairs for roughly fortyfive minutes. When Victim’s mother came downstairs, she noticed Victim 

sitting on Isaiah’s lap with a blanket covering them; Carman was in a 

nearby area. Concerned for Victim based on what she saw, the mother

collected her children and left Sarah’s home.

¶4 After driving away, Victim’s mother pulled over, took Victim 

behind the car, and asked her if Isaiah had touched her, and Victim nodded 

yes. Victim’s mother asked if he had touched her in her underwear, and 

Victim again nodded yes. When Victim’s mother asked if he touched her 

vagina, Victim looked down and turned her head before nodding yes.

Victim’s mother then called the police, and Victim was brought to 

Childhelp1 for questioning and a physical examination.

¶5 Isaiah was charged with one count of molestation of a child, 

a Class 2 felony. Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-1410.

¶6 At the adjudication hearing, Victim’s mother testified that 

when she came downstairs after completing the chiropractic adjustment,

she saw Victim sitting on Isaiah’s lap under a blanket, with “very big eyes,” 

and that Victim looked terrified. Victim’s mother could not say whether it 

was Isaiah or Carman, on whose lap Victim was sitting, but described the 

 

1 Childhelp is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping victims 

of child abuse and neglect.
IN RE ISAIAH A.

Decision of the Court

3

boy as matching Isaiah’s appearance. Victim’s mother’s first thought was 

that Isaiah was touching Victim, although she could not see Isaiah’s hands. 

Mother testified that as she gathered the children to leave the home, Isaiah 

followed her, asking random questions and being more talkative than 

usual. On cross-examination, Victim’s mother agreed that when she pulled 

over after leaving the house, she asked Victim leading questions and then 

told her that what Isaiah had done was wrong. She testified, however, that

she did not believe Victim was saying yes simply because she thought she, 

as the Victim’s mother, wanted her to or had suggested it.

¶7 Victim, nine years old at the time of the hearing, testified that 

she had been touched inappropriately by Isaiah, even though she could not 

remember when it happened or identify the boy in court. Victim testified 

that she sat on Isaiah’s lap with a blanket covering them both although it 

was not cold, and Isaiah used his hand to touch her genitals. Victim 

otherwise remembered very little of the incident.

¶8 Both Carman and Isaiah testified Victim sat on Isaiah’s lap, 

not Carman’s, although Isaiah denied he touched Victim’s genitals. Isaiah 

testified he played with Victim and her siblings, playfully dragged them on 

the blanket he regularly slept with, and watched a movie with them. He 

testified that during the movie Victim sat on his lap, and he used the blanket 

to cover them because Victim was cold. Further, both Isaiah and Carman 

stated Victim’s mother commented on how cute the children looked sitting 

together when she came downstairs and did not appear concerned or upset 

when she left.

¶9 The pediatric nurse at Childhelp testified about her 

examination of Victim. The nurse testified there were no injuries to Victim

but swabs were taken from Victim’s genitals. The State’s DNA analyst 

testified the swabs contained small amounts of male DNA, although the 

analyst testified that it was not such a “low level” to signify transfer of DNA 

through secondary contact.

2 Instead, the DNA analyst testified the transfer 

was primary, in that DNA was transferred from its source directly to 

 

2 A secondary transfer could have occurred if Isaiah touched the 

blanket, and the blanket touched Victim’s genitals. Isaiah contended the 

evidence showed a tertiary transfer, as for example, where Isaiah touched 

the blanket, the blanket touched Victim’s hand, and Victim then touched 

her genitals with her hand, or where Victim was playfully dragged on the 

blanket which contained Isaiah’s DNA, Victim’s underwear touched the 

blanket, and Isaiah’s DNA was transferred to the blanket, to Victim’s 

underwear, to her genitals.
IN RE ISAIAH A.

Decision of the Court

4

Victim’s genitals. The DNA profile belonged to males paternally related to 

Isaiah, which would include Isaiah as well as Carman. Some of the DNA 

results were inconclusive, but others matched Isaiah’s pattern at eleven

locations, an instance that randomly would not occur more frequently than 

one in 1,300 Caucasian males.

¶10 Isaiah’s DNA witness did not dispute the methodology the 

State’s expert used or the results showing a link to Isaiah’s family lineage, 

but disagreed with how the DNA came to be present on Victim’s genitals. 

Isaiah’s expert testified that in her opinion, the amount of DNA available 

did not indicate the level of transfer, as the relation of DNA from a primary 

transfer to secondary transfer is unknowable.3 In the expert’s opinion, the 

transfer could have occurred primarily, but also secondarily or tertiarily 

through contact with the blanket that Isaiah regularly slept with or through 

other innocuous contact.

¶11 At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found the State had 

proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Isaiah committed the charged 

offense and adjudicated Isaiah delinquent. Isaiah timely appealed.

¶12 We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A) and 12-

120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶13 Whether sufficient evidence exists to support an adjudication 

is a question of law, subject to de novo review on appeal. State v. West, 226 

Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). The relevant question is whether there is such

proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to 

support a finding of the essential elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Id. at ¶ 16. We will not re-weigh the evidence, and we 

will reverse only if there is a complete absence of probative facts to support 

the judgment or if the judgment is contrary to any substantial evidence. In 

re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 7 (App. 2001).

 

3 Isaiah’s expert testified, “You cannot use the amount of DNA 

detected to make a determination as to whether something was [a] primary 

or secondary transfer, because we don’t know how much DNA was 

transferred to begin with in a primary transfer.” She explained that if a 

primary transfer involved a large amount of DNA, resulting secondary and 

tertiary transfers may contain higher levels of DNA than some primary 

transfers.
IN RE ISAIAH A.

Decision of the Court

5

¶14 A person commits molestation of a child by intentionally or 

knowingly engaging in sexual contact with a child who is under fifteen 

years of age. A.R.S. § 13-1410. “Sexual contact” is defined as “any direct or 

indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus 

or female breast by any part of the body . . . .” A.R.S. § 13-1401(A)(3).

¶15 Isaiah was adjudicated of intentionally or knowingly 

touching Victim’s genitals by use of his hands. At the hearing, the court 

heard Victim testify that Isaiah touched her genitals, and DNA evidence 

tended to support that testimony. Moreover, the State’s DNA expert 

testified the amount of DNA present indicated a direct contact between 

Isaiah and Victim’s genitals; Isaiah’s expert witness testified the amount of 

DNA was inconclusive as to the type of transfer. Although Isaiah argues 

vigorously on appeal that Victim could not identify him at trial and that 

Victim’s mother was not certain at first whether it was Isaiah or Carman 

who had molested her daughter, it was undisputed at trial that when the 

mother came downstairs, Victim was sitting on Isaiah’s lap, not Carman’s. 

Further, although Isaiah’s counsel cross-examined Victim’s mother about 

the manner of her questioning of Victim after they left the house, the court 

was in the best position to weigh the credibility of witnesses. See State v. 

Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250, 252, ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (“[W]e do not impose our own 

determination as to the credibility of witnesses . . . [but] will defer to the 

trial court’s assessment of witness credibility because the trial court is in the 

best position to make that determination.”).

CONCLUSION

¶16 This Court finds there was sufficient evidence on record to 

support Isaiah’s adjudication, and we will not reverse the superior court’s 

finding that Isaiah intentionally or knowingly engaged in sexual contact 

with Victim by touching her genitals. We affirm.