NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

JEFF ALAN LOCKWOOD, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0220

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2009-007924-001

The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge

AFFIRMED

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By David Simpson

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Margaret M. Green

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen

joined.
STATE v. LOCKWOOD

Decision of the Court

2

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Jeff Lockwood appeals his convictions for felony 

murder and sexual assault. On appeal, Lockwood argues the trial court 

erred by denying his Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20 motion for 

judgment of acquittal on both counts. For the following reasons, we 

affirm the trial court’s ruling, the judgment of conviction and the resulting 

sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We review the evidence in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the convictions and resolve all inferences against Lockwood. 

State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, 412, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d 912, 914 (2005). On October 

21, 1994, the deceased victim, E.H., was discovered in one of Papago 

Park’s ramada structures.1 E.H. appeared to have been bludgeoned to 

death. E.H. was lying face down, and a large pool of blood had collected 

by his head. A large, irregularly shaped rock was found a short distance 

from E.H., within the blood pool. E.H.’s buttocks were exposed, as his 

pants were pulled down to the back of his thighs. Fecal matter and blood 

were present on E.H.’s buttocks and legs, and blood was on his back. 

There also appeared to be semen on E.H.’s right buttock. 

¶3 Police officers took photographs of the scene and 

impounded various items, including a blood-stained pillow situated next 

to E.H.’s body, the large rock located near E.H.’s head, a pair of jeans

found under E.H.’s body, and other assorted items of clothing positioned

near E.H. Officers also impounded a blood-stained blanket found

hanging over the rim of a nearby trash can; later testing revealed there 

were two separate semen stains on the blanket. Further, officers took 

fingerprints from various surfaces and items within the ramada; none of 

the fingerprints taken matched Lockwood. 

¶4 An autopsy revealed E.H. sustained multiple injuries to his 

scalp and face; these injuries included, amongst others, “four distinct areas 

of soft tissue lacerations and abrasions,” as well as communicating skull 

fractures, fractured nasal bones, and a fractured jaw bone. The medical 

examiner opined that the injuries, as well as the object responsible for the 

 1 E.H. was homeless. Testimony at trial established that he “lived” in this 

particular ramada, meaning he took refuge in it at night and would vacate 

it during the hours in which Papago Park was open to the public. 
STATE v. LOCKWOOD

Decision of the Court

3

injuries, were irregular and the injuries appeared to be the result of 

multiple blows to E.H.’s head. 

¶5 E.H. also suffered injuries to his rectum and anus. 

Specifically, he sustained several mucosal tears surrounding the anal 

opening, as well as a one-inch internal tear of the rectal mucosa “with 

dark discoloration of the mucosa surrounding the tear.” The internal 

injury resulted in a “perirectal hemorrhage” into the soft tissue. 

According to the medical examiner, the hemorrhage was the result of 

trauma; the trauma most likely caused by the insertion of a foreign object 

as there was “just too much force [for] a soft organ such as a penis to have 

caused it.” Based upon the hemorrhage, the medical examiner opined 

that E.H. was alive at the time of the trauma. As part of the autopsy, a 

sexual assault kit was performed on E.H. In the course of conducting the 

sexual assault kit, the medical examiner swabbed the area on E.H.’s 

buttocks where the apparent semen stain was located. 

¶6 Due to then-existing limitations on what could be done with

the evidence, the investigation into E.H.’s death went cold until 2008, 

when the Phoenix Police Crime Laboratory began processing some of the 

impounded items from the crime scene. Of note, the laboratory tested the 

swab from E.H.’s buttocks taken as part of the 1994 sexual assault kit and 

swabs taken from two different places on the recovered blanket; these 

tests produced positive results for traces of semen. Swabs of the semen 

stains were packaged and sent for DNA analysis. The analysis developed 

a DNA profile, which ultimately matched Lockwood’s. 

¶7 A Phoenix police detective then traveled to Florida to 

interview Lockwood in March 2009. The detective informed Lockwood of 

E.H.’s murder in Papago Park and that his semen was found on E.H.’s 

body. Lockwood admitted to living near Papago Park at the time of the 

murder, but denied having ever visited the park. Lockwood further 

denied: (1) ever having any sexual contact with men, including 

specifically E.H.; and (2) ever masturbating outside of his own home. 

Moreover, Lockwood denied having any knowledge of E.H.’s murder. 

¶8 Lockwood was indicted on two charges: (1) first degree 

premeditated murder, or in the alternative first degree felony murder, a 

class 1 felony (Count 1); and (2) sexual assault, a class 2 felony (Count 2).

Following the close of the State’s case in chief, Lockwood moved for a 

judgment of acquittal on both counts pursuant to Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 20, which the trial court denied.
STATE v. LOCKWOOD

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Thereafter, upon completion of the nineteen day bench trial,2

Lockwood was convicted of first degree felony murder and sexual assault. 

The trial court sentenced Lockwood to a prison term of natural life on 

Count 1 and the presumptive term of 10.5 years on Count 2.3 Lockwood 

timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A) (2014), 13-4031 (2014), and 13-4033(A)(1) 

(2014).4

DISCUSSION

¶10 Lockwood’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court 

erred by denying his Rule 20 motion. We review the denial of a Rule 20 

motion de novo. State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, 407, ¶ 69, 296 P.3d 54, 70 

(2013). 

¶11 A Rule 20 motion should only be granted if “there is no 

substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a); 

State v. Gray, 231 Ariz. 374, 375, ¶ 2, 295 P.3d 951, 952 (App. 2013). The 

key phrase – substantial evidence – requires more than a mere scintilla of 

evidence, meaning “such proof that reasonable persons could accept as 

adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Parker, 231 Ariz. at 407, ¶ 70, 296 P.3d at 70; 

Gray, 231 Ariz. at 375, ¶ 2, 295 P.3d at 952. 

¶12 In considering a Rule 20 motion, “‘the relevant question is 

whether, after viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the 

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Parker, 231 Ariz. at 

407, ¶ 70, 296 P.3d at 70 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 

(1979)). When evaluating whether substantial evidence exists to support a 

conviction, courts consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. State 

v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16, 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011). 

 2 The State initially sought the death penalty. In exchange for the State 

dismissing the death penalty allegation, Lockwood waived his right to be 

tried by a jury. 

3 Lockwood’s sentences in the immediate case are to run concurrent with 

one another, but consecutive to a life sentence Lockwood is currently 

serving in Florida. 

4 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, we cite the current 

version of the statutes and rules unless otherwise indicated.
STATE v. LOCKWOOD

Decision of the Court

5

A. Sexual Assault

¶13 “A person commits sexual assault by intentionally or 

knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any 

person without consent of such person.” A.R.S. § 13-1406(A) (2014). For 

these purposes, sexual intercourse is defined as “penetration into the 

penis, vulva or anus by any part of the body or by any object or 

masturbatory contact with the penis or vulva.” A.R.S. § 13-1401(3) (2014). 

The “without consent” requirement is satisfied if “[t]he victim is coerced 

by the immediate use or threatened use of force.” A.R.S. § 13-1401(5)(a). 

¶14 In this case, E.H. was discovered dressed only above the 

waist, with his pants having been pulled down below his thighs. The 

attack occurred in the middle of the night, with E.H. receiving multiple 

blows to his head, and E.H. sustaining no defensive wounds. The medical 

examiner testified that E.H. suffered internal rectal injuries so severe they 

were likely caused by a foreign object; he also suffered blunt force trauma 

to his head. Lockwood’s semen was found on E.H.’s buttocks within a 

mixture of blood and fecal matter, as well as on a bloody blanket. Further, 

undercutting the notion the sexual activity was consensual, Lockwood 

denied ever visiting Papago Park, knowing E.H., having sexual contact 

with men, or masturbating outside of his home. See State v. Kemp, 185 

Ariz. 52, 59, 912 P.2d 1281, 1288 (1996) (evidence of a defendant’s 

consciousness of guilt is relevant and admissible). 

¶15 Lockwood argues insufficient evidence was presented to 

find he engaged in any sexual activity with E.H., let alone that the sexual 

activity was non-consensual. He posits that, beyond the DNA evidence 

found at the crime scene, he could not be connected to Papago Park as 

there were no eye-witnesses that placed him there and his fingerprints 

were not found on the alleged murder weapon. In support of his 

contention, Lockwood relies upon State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 71, 796 

P.2d 866, 873 (1990), which holds that “[s]peculation concerning 

possibilities is an insufficient basis to sustain [a conviction].” We do not 

quarrel with this point of law, but Lockwood’s reliance on Mathers is 

unavailing.

¶16 In Mathers, there was no evidence placing the defendant at 

the crime scene; there was merely speculation that he must have been 

involved based upon (1) his departure from California to Arizona to “take 

care of some business” earlier that day with other people involved in the 

crime; (2) a previous trip the defendant had taken with a co-defendant in 

which a person was abducted; and (3) statements the defendant made in 
STATE v. LOCKWOOD

Decision of the Court

6

which he admitted he had been in Arizona during the day of the crime at 

issue. Id. at 69-71, 796 P.2d at 871-73. The Mathers Court found the 

evidence insufficient where the evidence was unable to establish the 

defendant’s involvement in the crimes or his presence at the crime scene. 

Id. The converse is true in the case at bar, as Lockwood’s DNA was not 

only found at the crime scene, but on the victim’s body. While there were 

no eye-witnesses and Lockwood’s fingerprints were not present at the 

scene, our Supreme Court has determined that no “particular piece of 

evidence . . . is required as a prerequisite for sufficiency,” but instead has 

applied a totality of the circumstances approach for evaluating proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485, 494, ¶ 26, 

975 P.2d 75, 84 (1999). 

¶17 Lockwood also argues that based upon the evidence, it is 

possible E.H. and Lockwood engaged in consensual sex. Notwithstanding

that this contention flies in the face of his specific denial of having ever

engaged in sexual activity with E.H. or any other men, the premise for this 

assertion is the medical examiner’s inability to definitively say E.H.’s anal 

and rectal injuries resulted from consensual or non-consensual sexual 

activity. Nevertheless, the medical examiner testified the injuries 

sustained by E.H. were likely the result of a foreign object and “a 

significant amount of force” being used. That being the case, “‘when 

reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case 

must be submitted to the [fact finder], and the trial judge has no discretion 

to enter a judgment of acquittal.’” West, 226 Ariz. at 563, ¶ 18, 250 P.3d at 

1192 (quoting State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 603, 944 P.2d 1204, 1217 (1997)). 

¶18 Based upon the foregoing, substantial evidence was 

presented from which a rational fact finder might reasonably conclude, 

beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lockwood sexually assaulted E.H., and 

that he did so using immediate force or the threat of force. See Fulminante, 

193 Ariz. at 494, ¶ 28, 975 P.2d at 84. Accordingly, the trial court correctly 

denied Lockwood’s Rule 20 motion regarding the sexual assault count. 

B. Felony Murder

¶19 Lockwood was also convicted of first degree felony murder. 

A person commits felony murder when “[a]cting either alone or with one 

or more other persons the person commits or attempts to commit . . . 

sexual assault under § 13-1406 . . . , and, in the course of and in 

furtherance of the [sexual assault] or immediate flight from the [sexual 

assault], the person or another person causes the death of any person.” 

A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2) (2014). 
STATE v. LOCKWOOD

Decision of the Court

7

¶20 Lockwood contends the evidence does not establish he was 

responsible for E.H.’s death. He points to the fact that his DNA was not 

found on the apparent murder weapon, and suggests it is possible a thirdparty caused E.H.’s death. 

¶21 Criminal convictions may rest solely upon circumstantial 

evidence. State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 404, 694 P.2d 222, 234 (1985). 

“Moreover, the State is not required to disprove every conceivable 

hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial 

evidence.” State v. Fischer, 219 Ariz. 408, 419, ¶ 43, 199 P.3d 663, 674 (App. 

2008) (quoting Nash, 143 Ariz. at 404, 694 P.2d at 234). 

¶22 There was sufficient evidence to permit the trier of fact to 

determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Lockwood committed felony 

murder. E.H. was found half naked, with the lower half of his body 

exposed as his pants had been pulled down. Lockwood’s semen was 

present in two spots on the discarded blanket covered in E.H.’s blood. In 

one of the locations, Lockwood’s semen was mixed with E.H.’s DNA. 

Further, Lockwood’s semen was also located on E.H.’s buttocks. The 

medical examiner testified the stain went “through an area of blood, feces, 

and sort of ends in a circle,” indicating the blood and feces were in place 

when the semen was deposited. Finally, a large rock found next to E.H.’s 

body was used to hit E.H. in the head multiple times, ultimately causing 

his death. 

¶23 Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, a 

reasonable trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt from 

the evidence presented that Lockwood hit E.H. in the head with the tenpound rock in order to facilitate a sexual assault upon E.H., and that in the 

furtherance of the sexual assault Lockwood caused E.H.’s death. 

Fulminante, 193 Ariz. at 494, ¶ 26, 975 P.2d at 84. Accordingly, the trial 

court did not err by denying Lockwood’s Rule 20 motion relating to the 

felony murder charge. 

CONCLUSION

¶24 We affirm Lockwood’s convictions and resulting sentences.