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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER LEN NELSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0822

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-138506-001

The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Jennifer L. Holder

Counsel for Appellee

The Law Office of Kyle T. Green P.L.L.C., Tempe

By Kyle Green

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 1-24-2019
STATE v. NELSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Christopher Nelson appeals his convictions and sentences for 

three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, class 2 felonies. For the 

following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Nelson was charged with three counts of sexual exploitation 

of a minor in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-

3553(A) by possessing child pornography. The charges and his convictions 

on those counts are based on three videos found on an SD card located in a 

ZTE cell phone found in Nelson’s pants pocket when he was arrested. The 

police seized the cell phone pursuant to a search warrant as part of an 

investigation into unrelated allegations of sexual exploitation of a minor. 

The three videos were discovered by police during a forensic examination 

of the ZTE cell phone. The three videos were recovered from unallocated 

space on the SD card in full-file format. According to Detective Fiore, who 

conducted the forensic examination, these three files were likely recently 

deleted from the ZTE cell phone before the phone was taken by police.

¶3 In November 2014, the Phoenix Police Department executed 

a search warrant at Nelson’s apartment and took possession of an Acer 

laptop and an Apple iPhone discovered in a bedroom. Nelson was not at 

the apartment during the search; before leaving, the police left a copy of the 

search warrant in the living room.

¶4 Police contacted Nelson’s former girlfriend, who arranged for 

Nelson to meet at her workplace later that day. When Nelson arrived, he 

was with a woman and her five-year-old son. Nelson was arrested, and an 

officer found a ZTE cell phone in Nelson’s pants pocket. Detective Angel, 

the investigation leader, submitted the ZTE cell phone, Acer laptop, and 

iPhone for a forensics examination. Detective Fiore conducted the forensic 

examination and found three videos depicting the sexual abuse of a boy on 

an SD storage card located inside the ZTE cell phone. Detective Angel later 
STATE v. NELSON

Decision of the Court

3

determined that the child depicted in the videos was the same boy who was 

with Nelson on the day he was arrested.

¶5 As part of Detective Fiore’s forensic examination, he searched 

for indicia of ownership; on the SD card, he found multiple selfies of Nelson 

and photographs of the search warrant and property receipt the police left 

at Nelson’s apartment. Detective Fiore also testified that he found the three 

videos in full-file format located within unallocated space on the SD card, 

meaning the videos were deleted, which indicated to him that the videos 

were likely deleted recently before his examination. Because the files were 

in full-file format, Detective Fiore testified that “when [the videos were] 

deleted, there was minimal to no use after that, because . . . portions of any 

one of those files would’ve been overridden, and I would not have been 

able to recover them in their entirety.” He also testified that he found no

indication that any other person had used the SD card on the ZTE phone.

¶6 Detective Fiore testified that he discovered indicia of Nelson’s 

ownership on the Acer laptop and iPhone during the forensic examination. 

There was data showing that the ZTE phone had been plugged into the 

Acer laptop and the same selfies on the SD card were on the laptop. 

Moreover, the iPhone was named “Christopher’s iPhone,” and associated 

with the same personal email accounts found on the Acer laptop.

¶7 The victim’s father also testified identifying his son as the 

child depicted in the videos.

¶8 At the jury trial, the court denied Nelson’s motion for 

acquittal on all counts pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 

(“Rule”) 20. The jury convicted Nelson of all counts and Nelson timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the 

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

DISCUSSION

I. Preclusion of Cell Phone Evidence

¶9 Before trial, the superior court denied Nelson’s motion in 

limine to preclude cell phone evidence “without prejudice to defense 

counsel being able to bring it up during the trial if he believes that there’s 

foundational elements that have been missing.” A few weeks before trial, 

the State dismissed twenty-five counts of the indictment. At trial, the three 

videos were admitted without objection from Nelson; these videos were the 

basis of the three remaining counts of sexual exploitation.
STATE v. NELSON

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 On appeal, Nelson argues that the superior court improperly 

admitted cell phone evidence, which Nelson describes as “evidence related 

to other media found on devices during a search warrant.” He generally 

contends the evidence was improper “other acts” evidence under Arizona 

Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the evidence was prejudicial and 

irrelevant. However, Nelson fails to either specify exactly what evidence 

was improperly presented to the jury or cite to the record.

¶11 At trial, the three videos and sanitized screen shots from those 

videos, as well as other photographs of Nelson, the victim, the victim’s 

mother, the location of the offenses, the vehicle in which Nelson was 

travelling when stopped by police, the laptop, the mobile phone recovered 

from Nelson, and an additional mobile phone were admitted without 

objection. Other contraband images mentioned in the motion in limine were 

related to the twenty-five counts dismissed prior to trial. Those images 

were never admitted into evidence.

¶12 We review a superior court’s evidentiary ruling for an abuse 

of discretion. State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 129, ¶ 42 (2006). “Absent a clear 

abuse of discretion, we will not second-guess a trial court’s ruling on the 

admissibility or relevance of evidence.” State v. Rodriguez, 186 Ariz. 240, 

250 (1996).

¶13 The State argues that Nelson’s failure to meaningfully 

develop his argument constitutes waiver because Nelson generally argues 

that the images were extremely prejudicial and irrelevant, without any 

citation to the record identifying specific evidence he contends was 

improperly presented to the jury. See ARCAP 13(a)(7); State v. Moody, 208 

Ariz. 424, 452, ¶ 101 n.9 (2004) (explaining opening briefs that fail to present 

significant arguments supported by authority usually constitutes 

abandonment and waiver of that argument).

¶14 Notwithstanding the State’s claim of waiver, the superior 

court did not err. The court denied Nelson’s pretrial motion with the 

explanation that Nelson should make his objections at trial. There was no 

error in admitting the three videos. Nelson was charged with possession of 

the three videos depicting sexual exploitation of the minor; therefore,

admission of the videos into the record was necessary to prove an element 

of the crimes. A.R.S. § 13-3553(A)(2); see State v. Farley, 199 Ariz. 542, 544, 

¶ 8 (App. 2001) (explaining the state has the burden of proving every 

element of an alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt). The State did not 

introduce “other act” evidence pursuant to Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b). None of 

the photographs admitted into evidence depicted illicit activity. Instead, 
STATE v. NELSON

Decision of the Court

5

they were received as circumstantial evidence of the crime, including 

ownership of the mobile phone upon which the illicit videos were located. 

Therefore, this evidence was relevant, and its probative value outweighed 

any prejudicial effect. Upon review of the record, we find that other 

contraband images or videos found on Nelson’s electronic devices were not

admitted or discussed with the jury. Accordingly, there was no error. See 

State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 339, ¶ 71 n.8 (2007) (appellant cannot establish 

prejudice from exhibits never admitted into evidence).

II. Rule 20 Motion

¶15 Nelson moved for acquittal pursuant to Rule 20, and argues 

the superior court erred in denying his motion on all three counts. We 

disagree.

¶16 We review the superior court’s ruling on a Rule 20 motion de 

novo. State v. Florez, 241 Ariz. 121, 124, ¶ 7 (App. 2016). A Rule 20 motion 

should only be granted if “there is no substantial evidence to support a 

conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a). Thus, the purpose of such a motion is 

to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. See State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 

419 (1980). “’Substantial evidence’ is evidence that reasonable persons 

could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of 

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. We resolve any conflict 

in the evidence in favor of sustaining the verdict, and we will reverse only

if a complete absence of probative facts supports the conviction. State v. 

Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989); State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423, 424-25 (1976). 

We will not weigh the evidence; that is the function of the jury. Guerra, 161 

Ariz. at 293. If reasonable minds could differ on inferences to be drawn 

from the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, the case must be 

submitted to the jury. State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1, 4 (1993).

¶17 A person commits sexual exploitation of a minor if he or she 

knowingly possesses a “visual depiction in which a minor is engaged in 

exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct.” A.R.S. § 13-3553(A)(2). To 

“possess” something means “knowingly to have physical possession or 

otherwise exercise dominion or control over property.” A.R.S. § 13-105(34). 

Possession may be actual or constructive. State v. Gonsalves, 231 Ariz. 521, 

523, ¶ 9 (App. 2013). Nelson argues the State failed to prove knowing 

possession because the SD card had pictures of other people who might 

have used or owned the ZTE cell phone and the State did not provide

fingerprints or DNA evidence.
STATE v. NELSON

Decision of the Court

6

¶18 Nelson does not dispute that the three videos were visual 

depictions of a minor engaged in exploitive exhibition or other sexual 

conduct. Detectives testified the three videos were found on an SD card 

inside the ZTE cell phone found in Nelson’s pocket when he was arrested. 

Detective Fiore testified specifically about indicia of identification and 

ownership found on the ZTE cell phone, the Acer computer, and the 

iPhone, which showed that Nelson possessed and accessed the cell phones 

and computer. Detective Fiore testified that the forensic examination 

determined the ZTE cell phone had been plugged into the Acer computer 

in order to access the information on the SD card. Moreover, Detective 

Fiore testified that the three videos were discovered in unallocated space

within the ZTE cell phone, meaning they were deleted from the cell phone; 

however, Detective Fiore recovered the full-files for each video, which he 

ultimately testified was significant because it showed that the videos were 

recently deleted. Detective Fiore also found photos of the search warrant 

and selfies of Nelson on the phone. Further, Detective Angel explained that 

fingerprints are typically not gathered from electronic devices because it 

would inhibit their ability to retrieve digital information. Finally, the 

child’s father identified his son depicted in the charged videos and testified 

that the child was a minor under the age of fifteen. In fact, the child was 

five years old.

¶19 The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that after 

police executed the search warrant and before he was arrested, Nelson 

deleted the three videos from the SD card. This was substantial evidence 

that Nelson knowingly possessed the admittedly illicit video files. As such, 

the superior court did not err by denying Nelson’s Rule 20 motion.

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶20 Nelson makes the same arguments that there was insufficient 

evidence to convict him for possession of child pornography. In reviewing 

the sufficiency of the evidence, the question is whether there was 

substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Routhier, 137 Ariz. 90, 99 (1981). 

For reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence to occur, there 

must be a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction. 

Scott, 113 Ariz. at 424-25 (citation omitted). We will not set aside a jury 

verdict for insufficient evidence unless it “clearly appear[s] that upon no 

hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion 

reached by the jury.” State v. Arredondo, 155 Ariz. 314, 316 (1987) (citation 

omitted).
STATE v. NELSON

Decision of the Court

7

¶21 Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdicts. The State 

presented evidence that detectives discovered the charged depictions on an 

SD card inside a ZTE cell phone found in Nelson’s pocket when he was 

arrested. As stated above, Detective Fiore testified that the SD card 

contained indicia of Nelson’s ownership, including selfies and photos of a 

copy of the search warrant that police left in Nelson’s house; and the 

detective testified to additional indicia of ownership on the Acer computer 

and iPhone that corroborated Nelson’s ownership of the ZTE cell phone. 

Detectives testified that Nelson used the laptop, as corroborated by the

iPhone discovered at Nelson’s apartment, which had identical account 

information as the laptop and named “Christopher’s iPhone.” Moreover, 

the detective testified that Nelson previously viewed the files from the SD 

card on the Acer laptop. Finally, Detective Fiore testified the three 

contraband videos were deleted from the SD card, most likely just before 

he was arrested.

¶22 Nelson’s arguments ask the court to reweigh the evidence. 

On appeal, we will not reweigh the evidence. Guerra, 161 Ariz. at 293. The

jury had sufficient evidence to find Nelson knowingly possessed the illegal 

depictions.

CONCLUSION

¶23 We affirm Nelson’s convictions and sentences.