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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JAMES HENRY LANE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0061 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CR201900980

The Honorable Cathleen Brown Nichols, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Brian R. Coffman

Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. Mc Eachern, Attorney at Law, Chandler

By Janelle A. Mc Eachern

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 2-13-2024
STATE v. LANE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 James Henry Lane appeals his convictions and sentences for 

child abuse, felony murder, tampering with physical evidence, and seven 

drug-related offenses. He challenges only the child abuse and murder 

convictions, arguing that the superior court erred by denying his motion 

for new trial based on lack of evidence supporting the jury verdicts. We 

affirm because substantial evidence supports the convictions.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Lily,

1 Lane’s six-year-old granddaughter, began living with 

him in late 2018. Under a temporary custody agreement, Lane assumed 

parental responsibility for Lily. Lane had a good relationship with Lily, 

providing for her housing and nutritional needs, taking her to school, and

buying her things. But at the same time, Lane was selling fentanyl, 

methamphetamine, and heroin out of his bedroom. Lane also used drugs 

and allowed other active drug users to live in the house, including his 

girlfriend Victoria Bizardie and his employee Ronald Lehr. 

¶3 Lane adopted a house rule of no drugs around the children,

but this rule was often violated without consequence. Lane himself violated 

his rule by occasionally smoking cocaine in Lily’s room as she slept. It is 

undisputed that Lane and others, including Bizardie, were often under the 

influence of drugs while Lily was in their care. 

¶4 One evening, Bizardie returned to the house and found Lane 

and Lily sleeping in Lane’s bedroom. Bizardie woke Lane because someone 

was coming over to do some business. Lane got up and told Lehr to take 

Lily to her own bedroom. Lehr complied, carrying the child to her bed and 

laying her down while she slept. Sometime later, another house resident

told Lehr that she had seen a bottle of pills on Lily’s bedroom floor. Lehr

went into Lily’s room and found an unlabeled bottle containing blue pills. 

1 We use a pseudonym for the minor victim.
STATE v. LANE

Decision of the Court

3

Lehr reported this to Lane, who responded that he had asked “the bitch”

—whom Lehr took to mean Lily—to pick up the pills from his bedroom 

floor. When he could not find the pill bottle, he knew she had taken them 

out of his room. Lane took the pills from Lehr and put them back in his 

bedroom. Lane then smoked cocaine, first in Lehr’s bedroom and then in 

Lily’s bedroom as she slept. 

¶5 The next morning, Bizardie left the house for the day. Lehr 

asked Lane if they should check on Lily. Lane responded not to worry about 

her. When a house cleaner arrived later that morning, she went into Lily’s 

bedroom and found the child unresponsive. Lane called Bizardie, who 

returned to the house and drove Lily to a hospital. Lane stayed behind to 

oversee a cleanup of the house, which included the transfer of bags and 

boxes from his house to his neighbors’ outdoor trashcan. 

¶6 When Lily arrived at the hospital, she was lifeless. She never 

regained a pulse despite intubation, CPR, and medication. When lifesaving 

efforts proved fruitless, she was pronounced dead. Lily’s urine had traces 

of cocaine, and her blood contained a lethal concentration of fentanyl. A 

medical examiner determined an overdose of fentanyl to be the cause of 

death.

¶7 The police executed search warrants later that day. In the car 

that Bizardie used to take Lily (and later Lane) to the hospital, the police 

found indicia of drug sales including baggies of blue fentanyl pills, 

methamphetamine, and heroin. Police also found more indicia of drug use 

and sales in Lane’s house, as well as evidence that Lane had attempted to 

rid the house of the incriminating items before the police arrived. Among 

other things, the police found a trash bag in the living room containing

smoking pipes, foil with residue, and melted baggies. The counter and sink 

in Lane’s bathroom were covered in drug residue, and the sink’s p-trap 

contained a chunky white substance that later tested positive for cocaine 

and methamphetamine. Both the toilet and trashcan were filled with small 

baggies.

¶8 Lane and Bizardie were arrested several months later. The 

police searched their car and found drug paraphernalia, drug residue, and 

pills consistent with fentanyl.

¶9 Lane was charged and found guilty of multiple offenses, 

including felony murder predicated on child abuse. Lane moved for a new 

trial on the child abuse and murder counts, arguing that the evidence did 

not support a finding that he acted intentionally or knowingly. The superior 
STATE v. LANE

Decision of the Court

4

court denied Lane’s motion, and later imposed a sentence. Lane timely 

appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶10 Lane contends—albeit without much elaboration—that the 

superior court erred by denying his motion for new trial. He argues the 

evidence did not support a finding that he acted intentionally or knowingly 

with respect to the child abuse and murder counts.

2

¶11 The superior court may order a new trial if “the verdict is 

contrary to law or the weight of the evidence.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 24.1(c)(1). 

The judge has broad discretion to determine whether the verdict is contrary 

to the evidence, and, in exercising that discretion, may assess the strength 

of the evidence in view of the judge’s experience and training. State v. 

Fischer, 242 Ariz. 44, 50–51, ¶¶ 20–25 (2017). But on appeal, our review is 

limited to deciding whether substantial evidence supports the superior 

court’s discretionary determination—we may not reweigh the facts. Id. at 

51–52, ¶¶ 26–29. 

¶12 A person commits class two felony child abuse if, “[u]nder 

circumstances likely to produce death or serious physical injury,” he 

“intentionally or knowingly” causes a child under the age of 15 years to 

“suffer physical injury or, having the care or custody of a child . . . causes 

or permits the person or health of the child . . . to be injured or . . . causes or 

permits a child to be placed in a situation where the person or health of the 

child . . . is endangered.” A.R.S. § 13-3623(A). Such an abuser is also guilty 

of first-degree murder if he causes the child’s death “in the course of and in 

furtherance of the offense.” A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2).

¶13 Here, substantial evidence at trial showed that—at the very 

least—Lane committed child abuse and felony murder by intentionally or 

knowingly permitting six-year-old Lily to live in a dangerous environment 

that resulted in her death. Lane had custody of Lily and was charged with 

protecting her from dangerous conditions. Instead of safeguarding the

child, he allowed her to live in a drug-infested house with adults who were 

2 Lane also argues in passing that a new trial was required because of 

prosecutorial misconduct. But he never mentioned misconduct in his 

motion for new trial, he makes no effort to identify the alleged misconduct 

in his appellate brief, and we detected no misconduct in our review of the 

record. Accordingly, any argument premised on prosecutorial misconduct 

is waived. See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 297–98 (1995). 
STATE v. LANE

Decision of the Court

5

under the influence. Lane sold drugs, used drugs, and allowed active drug 

users to live with the child. He intentionally or knowingly exposed her, a 

young child, to toxic drugs, drug sales, and active, impaired drug users on 

a daily basis. Lane was aware of the conditions and knowingly allowed the 

child to live in this situation, endangering her health and safety in a manner 

that led to her death. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3623(A)(1), -1105(A)(2). 

¶14 To compound his knowledge of placing Lily in a situation 

where her health was endangered, he directed her to handle fentanyl pills 

on her own just before she died. And when he was alerted to the fact that 

she had taken the pills to her room, he did nothing to ensure she had not 

taken any pills. Instead, he smoked cocaine in her bedroom as she slept. The 

next day, she was discovered unresponsive, and was declared deceased due 

to what was later found to be fentanyl poisoning. Lane has not shown that 

the superior court abused its discretion by determining that the evidence 

did not warrant a new trial on the child abuse and felony murder charges.

Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdicts.

CONCLUSION

¶15 We affirm.