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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

HADEED NAJIM, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0127 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2020-139470-001

The Honorable Howard D. Sukenic, Judge Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Eliza Ybarra

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Damon A. Rossi

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 9-19-2023
STATE v. NAJIM

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Hadeed Najim, f/k/a Sharod Willie Austin, appeals from his 

conviction and resulting sentence for aggravated assault. We affirm 

Najim’s conviction and sentence. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

jury’s verdict. State v. Fuentes, 247 Ariz. 516, 520, ¶ 2 (App. 2019).

¶3 While working overnight in an industrial area of Tempe, the 

victim and his co-worker went outside for a smoke break and saw Najim 

walking along the nearby frontage road. Soon after, Najim rushed up and 

stabbed the victim’s neck and back multiple times. Najim then fled the area.

¶4 Earlier that night, a security guard for a nearby business saw

Najim on the premises and asked him to leave. Finding Najim’s presence 

suspicious, the security guard and his co-workers drove around the area

after their shift. When they reached the victim’s workplace, they saw Najim 

attack the victim. One of the security guard’s co-workers found Najim 

nearby and detained him until police arrived. Near where Najim was 

found, police discovered a knife with the victim’s DNA on the blade and 

Najim’s DNA on the handle. 

¶5 The State charged Najim with one count of aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, a class three felony and 

dangerous offense. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-1204. Najim moved 

to dismiss the charge, arguing that his due process rights were violated, in 

part because the investigating officer muted her body-worn camera during 

portions of her interview with the victim. After full briefing and an 

evidentiary hearing, the superior court found no due process violation and 

denied Najim’s motion. The court found that the investigating officer did 

not act in bad faith, there was no evidence that any information of 

evidentiary value was lost, and that any missing information could be 

obtained through officer reports and subsequent witness interviews. 
STATE v. NAJIM

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 Following trial, the jury found Najim guilty as charged. Based 

on the jury’s finding of aggravating circumstances and Najim’s two prior

dangerous felony convictions, the court sentenced him to 25 years in prison. 

See A.R.S. § 13-704(E).

¶7 Najim timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, 

Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 

13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review the denial of a motion to dismiss for an abuse of

discretion. State v. Hulsey, 243 Ariz. 367, 377, ¶ 17 (2018). We defer to the 

superior court’s findings of fact when they are supported by the record and 

not clearly erroneous. Id. But we review de novo the court’s legal 

conclusions, including whether Najim’s due process rights were violated. 

See State v. Smith, 250 Ariz. 69, 82–83, ¶ 34 (2020). 

¶9 The failure of police to preserve “potentially useful evidence”

violates due process only if the police acted in bad faith. Arizona v. 

Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988). “Absent bad faith on the part of the 

officers, due process is violated only when the evidence possessed an 

obvious exculpatory value and is of such a nature that the defendant would 

not be able to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means.” 

State v. Turner, 251 Ariz. 217, 221, ¶ 11 (App. 2021) (citing Hulsey, 243 Ariz. 

at 377, ¶ 18).

¶10 Najim concedes that the victim’s unrecorded statements were 

not “materially exculpatory” but only “potentially useful.” Therefore, to 

show a due process violation, Najim must show that the investigating 

officer acted in bad faith. See id. Najim argues that when the officer muted 

her body-worn camera while speaking with the victim at the hospital, she 

failed to preserve the victim’s potentially useful statements and acted in 

bad faith.

¶11 The investigating officer met the victim at the hospital 

immediately after the assault. When she arrived, her body camera was on, 

recording audio and video. The officer questioned the victim both before 

and after the victim was taken for a CAT scan. The officer then reviewed

the victim’s account and asked him follow-up questions. 

¶12 The body camera footage shows that for the next three 

minutes, the officer flipped through her notes, put her pen away, sat down, 

and called to check on the status of the officer who was meeting her at the 
STATE v. NAJIM

Decision of the Court

4

hospital with the swabs to collect the victim’s DNA. She then asked the 

victim one more question and after about 20 seconds of silence, she muted 

her body camera’s audio. Her camera remained muted for the remaining 

24 minutes of her interaction with the victim. Moments after the officer 

muted her body camera, the victim spoke with her again for about four 

minutes while she took notes. The victim did not speak again until the other 

officer arrived with the DNA swabs and the investigating officer collected

the victim’s DNA samples. After his DNA was collected, the victim spoke

with both officers for a few minutes until medical staff arrived to treat his

wounds. The investigating officer then completed her paperwork and left 

the hospital. All told, the victim appeared to speak with officers for less 

than half of the 24 minutes that the officer’s body camera was muted.

¶13 At the evidentiary hearing on Najim’s motion, the 

investigating officer testified that while interviewing people in hospital 

settings, she often mutes her body camera when the interview is over 

because hospital staff discuss personal, medical information. She further 

testified that she muted her body camera after she finished her interview 

with the victim and was waiting for the other officer to arrive with the DNA 

swabs. She explained that because she was located near a nurses’ station, 

she muted her body camera after the interview concluded to protect 

patients’ privacy. The officer also explained that the Tempe Police 

Department’s body camera policy states that officers “shall not record in a 

hospital setting unless it’s for a criminal investigation.” She explained that, 

although the policy states that officers should provide a reason for muting

their body cameras, it is not required.

¶14 Najim contends that the investigating officer acted in bad 

faith because she failed to mute her body camera at earlier points when 

patient information was discussed. But the officer testified that she muted 

her body camera once she believed the interview was finished. At that 

point, because she no longer had an investigative purpose, she muted her 

camera to protect the privacy of patients in the hospital. And although the 

officer did not mute her camera at earlier points—when private information 

may have been discussed nearby—it is evident that this was because her 

investigation was ongoing. It was only once she believed the interview was 

over that she muted her camera. The footage shows that she muted her 

body camera at the conclusion of her questioning and as she awaited the

other officer’s arrival. 

¶15 The superior court found the investigating officer’s testimony 

credible, a decision to which we defer. See State v. Estrada, 209 Ariz. 287, 

292, ¶ 22 (App. 2004) (“Because the trial court was in the best position to 
STATE v. NAJIM

Decision of the Court

5

observe the demeanor of the witnesses and determine their possible biases, 

we must defer to its assessment of their credibility[.]”) (citations omitted), 

holding modified by State v. Nesley, 241 Ariz. 327 (2017). Nothing in our 

review of the video recording leads us to conclude that the court’s ruling is

clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.

¶16 Najim also argues that the investigating officer acted in bad 

faith because she did not follow the Tempe Police Department’s body

camera policy when she muted her body camera. We disagree. 

¶17 Pursuant to the Tempe Police Department’s policy, an officer

is not to record in a hospital unless it is for a criminal investigation. Though 

the investigating officer did not announce a reason for muting her body 

camera, the policy states this action as a recommendation, not a 

requirement. At worst, assuming their later exchange had any evidentiary 

value, the officer acted negligently in failing to restart the audio when the 

victim resumed speaking and she resumed notetaking. But negligence is

not bad faith. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58; see also Turner, 251 Ariz. at 222, 

¶ 17. 

¶18 Najim contends that failing to restart the audio at this point 

was intentional, not negligent. In support of this position, Najim argues 

that while her audio recording was muted, the officer blurred the camera’s 

video as she took notes. But this argument ignores that the officer blurred 

her notes throughout her conversation with the victim following his CAT 

scan, both while the camera recorded audio and after she muted the camera. 

Her blurring of notes, without more, is not evidence of bad faith. And the 

officer testified that she documented the victim’s relevant statements in her 

report, which Najim received. The superior court weighed the competing 

characterizations of this evidence, including testimony, and concluded 

against Najim’s position. We will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. State 

v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 603 (1997). 

¶19 We see no error in the superior court’s ruling that the 

investigating officer did not act in bad faith and that Najim was not denied 

due process. The court thus properly denied Najim’s motion to dismiss.
STATE v. NAJIM

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶20 We affirm Najim’s conviction and sentence.

1

1 The superior court’s sentencing order incorrectly lists the date of offense 

for both of Najim’s prior dangerous felony convictions as June 29, 2013. The 

record shows that Najim’s prior offense of aggravated assault was 

committed on June 28, 2013, and his prior offense of attempted armed 

robbery was committed on June 29, 2013. Despite this typographical error, 

the superior court properly sentenced Najim because he was convicted of 

two prior dangerous felony convictions.