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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

PERSEVERANCE RUSAGARA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0567 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2017-143787-001

The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joshua C. Smith

Counsel for Appellee

The Stavris Law Firm PLLC, Scottsdale

By Alison Stavris

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 6-27-2019
STATE v. RUSAGARA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 This court will reverse a conviction if the prosecutor failed to 

introduce substantial evidence of guilt or committed misconduct that likely 

affected the jury’s verdict. Perseverance Rusagara argues both occurred 

during his trial on the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

Rusagara’s arguments are unsupported by the record. We affirm his 

conviction.

BACKGROUND1

¶2 Late one evening, Rusagara arrived unannounced at the 

victim’s apartment carrying beer bottles in a grocery bag and a folding knife

in his pocket. The victim, who was returning from his car, met Rusagara

outside. When Rusagara saw the victim, he shouted repeatedly that the 

victim owed him $20. While there are conflicting accounts of how the 

physical altercation began, eventually Rusagara hit the victim with a beer 

bottle. When the beer bottle shattered over the victim’s head, Rusagara

grabbed a second bottle and continued hitting the victim. At some point

during the attack, Rusagara also cut the victim’s arm with the knife.

¶3 The victim’s girlfriend heard shouting, saw Rusagara break 

the first beer bottle over the victim’s head, and called the police. When the 

police arrived, they interviewed everyone present and saw that the victim 

had a large knot on his head and a laceration on his arm. Ultimately, police

arrested Rusagara and took him to the station. There, Rusagara admitted he 

cut the victim with his knife, although he claimed it was unintentional.

Later in the interview he denied ever “pull[ing] out a weapon.”

¶4 The jury found Rusagara guilty of aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon. During the aggravation phase of trial, the jury found the 

following aggravating circumstances: the defendant was on probation at 

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s 

verdict. State v. Boyston, 231 Ariz. 539, 542, ¶ 2 n.2 (2013).
STATE v. RUSAGARA

Decision of the Court

3

the time of the offense, the offense caused physical or emotional harm to 

the victim, and the offense was a dangerous offense. Rusagara was 

sentenced to the presumptive term of 7.5 years for aggravated assault with 

a knife, a class three dangerous felony. 

DISCUSSION

I. The State presented substantial evidence of aggravated assault.

¶5 Rusagara challenges the court’s denial of his motion for 

judgment of acquittal after the State presented its case in chief. He argues 

the evidence was insufficient to show he committed aggravated assault 

because the victim’s girlfriend did not see a knife, the victim’s testimony 

was inconsistent, and the defendant denied using the knife to harm the 

victim. Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law subject to de novo 

review. State v. Denson, 241 Ariz. 6, 10, ¶ 17 (App. 2016). “After the close of 

evidence on either side . . . the court must enter a judgment of acquittal . . . 

if there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. 

P. 20(a)(1). Substantial evidence is direct or circumstantial evidence that 

“reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a 

conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Denson, 241 

Ariz. at 10, ¶ 17 (citation omitted). We resolve all reasonable inferences 

against the defendant. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). 

¶6 A person commits aggravated assault by “[i]ntentionally, 

knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person”

using a dangerous weapon or instrument. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 13-1203, -1304(A)(2). Here, ample evidence showed that Rusagara used 

a knife to commit assault. Video and still images from a police officer’s body 

camera showed a cut on the victim’s arm and a knife in Rusagara’s 

possession. The victim testified at trial that Rusagara cut him with a knife 

and showed the jury the resulting scar on his arm. Finally, in a video of his 

police interview, Rusagara admitted to cutting the victim with his knife. See

State v. Michael, 161 Ariz. 382, 386 (App. 1989) (holding that to show

dangerousness of a crime, “Defendant’s own statement about possessing a 

knife was sufficient evidence that a knife was used.”). A reasonable person 

could accept the testimony, video, and photographs as substantial evidence 

to support the conviction. Accordingly, the court did not err by denying

Rusagara’s motion for acquittal.
STATE v. RUSAGARA

Decision of the Court

4

II. The superior court was not required to declare a mistrial sua 

sponte.

¶7 Before Rusagara testified at trial, the court ruled the 

prosecutor could impeach him with evidence that he had previously 

committed a felony offense but could not disclose the nature of the prior 

offense. See Ariz. R. Evid. 609. Rusagara testified and the prosecutor 

complied with the court’s order, so that the jury only heard that Rusagara 

had a prior felony conviction. 

¶8 During the aggravation phase of trial, however, the 

prosecutor elicited testimony from the arresting officer about the nature of 

the offense. The prosecutor asked if Rusagara mentioned to the officer why 

he was on probation. The officer responded, “I believe it was for an 

aggravated assault involving a knife.” Rusagara now asserts that exchange 

constituted prosecutorial misconduct requiring the superior court to sua 

sponte declare a mistrial. Following the officer’s answer, Rusagara did not 

move for a mistrial, but moved to strike the response, and the superior court 

did so. The testimony identifying the nature of the prior felony conviction 

was stricken and the jury was instructed to disregard the officer’s answer. 

Jurors are presumed to follow the judge’s instructions. State v. Newell, 212 

Ariz. 389, 403, ¶ 68 (2006). Therefore, we presume that the jurors followed 

the court’s instructions in reaching their conclusion regarding aggravating 

factors in this matter. “Even if the prosecutor’s comments were improper, 

the judge’s instructions negated their effect.” State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 

337, ¶ 55 (2007). Therefore, no fundamental error occurred.

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.