Opinion ID: 859237
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶16 On the two murder counts, the State argued that Hardy was guilty of both premeditated and felony murder. At the close of the State’s case in chief, Hardy moved for a judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping and burglary charges, which also served as the predicate offenses for the felony murder theory. He also moved for a judgment of acquittal on felony murder, arguing that the State failed to prove that he committed the shootings to further the kidnapping or burglary. Hardy argues that the trial court erred in denying those motions. ¶17 A judgment of acquittal is appropriate “if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a); see State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 561 ¶ 8, 562 ¶ 14, 250 P.3d 1188, 1190, 1191 (2011). “Substantial evidence is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, 212 ¶ 87, 84 P.3d 456, 477 (2004). We review the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo, viewing 7 the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. West, 226 Ariz. at 562 ¶ 15, 250 P.3d at 1191.
¶18 “A person commits kidnapping by knowingly restraining another person with the intent to . . . aid in the commission of a felony.” A.R.S. § 13-1304(A)(3). “‘Restrain’ means to restrict a person’s movements without consent, without legal authority, and in a manner [that] interferes substantially with such person’s liberty, by . . . moving such person from one place to another . . . . Restraint is without consent if it is accomplished by[] [p]hysical force, intimidation or deception.” A.R.S. § 13-1301(2). ¶19 The record reflects substantial evidence that Hardy knowingly restrained Meleigha. She testified that Hardy “just appeared” from behind her while she was using a vending machine. He grabbed her by the back of her neck and arm, and she “just started going upstairs” because he was holding her firmly enough to direct her movement. He took her “up to [her] apartment” and “pushed [her] in the living room and just started walking back to the bedrooms.” The jury saw photographs of bruises on Meleigha’s neck and arms that she testified were caused by Hardy. The jury also heard an audio recording of Meleigha’s 911 call, in which she told the operator, “He got me when I was down there, and he made me go up . . . . He had the gun to my back.” 8 The operator asked, “So did he like physically grab you,” and Meleigha responded, “Yes, he grabbed me.” ¶20 The evidence further established that Hardy restrained Meleigha with the intent to aid his commission of a felony, that is, to injure or kill Tiffany and Don. Hardy searched for Tiffany before the murders, and told a bartender he could “kill them both.” After speaking to Don on the telephone, Hardy retrieved his gun from his son before going to Meleigha’s apartment. He took the gun into the apartment and shot the victims several times. Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the record reflects sufficient evidence to support the kidnapping conviction.
¶21 A person commits burglary in the first degree by “entering or remaining unlawfully in . . . a residential structure with the intent to commit . . . any felony therein,” and “knowingly possess[ing] . . . a deadly weapon . . . in the course of committing any theft or any felony.” A.R.S. §§ 131507 to 1508. ¶22 The record reflects sufficient evidence to show that Hardy unlawfully entered Meleigha’s residence. He pushed Meleigha into her apartment and, with neither invitation nor consent, went down the hallway toward the bedrooms. Hardy knowingly took a gun into the apartment. The evidence showed 9 that Hardy entered the apartment intending to confront and shoot Tiffany and Don. See supra ¶ 20. Substantial evidence thus supports the burglary conviction.
¶23 A person is guilty of felony murder if he “commits or attempts to commit . . . kidnapping under § 13-1304, [or] burglary under § 13-1506, 13-1507 or 13-1508 . . . and, in the course of and in furtherance of the offense . . . causes the death of any person.” A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2). “A death is in furtherance when it results from any action taken to facilitate the accomplishment of the predicate felony.” State v. Lacy, 187 Ariz. 340, 349-50, 929 P.2d 1288, 1297-98 (1996) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); see also State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. 441, 443, 641 P.2d 1285, 1287 (1982) (distinguishing death that facilitates criminal objective of underlying felony from death that results from commission of predicate crime, and concluding the former is not required by § 13-1105(A)(2)). ¶24 Hardy argues generally that he did not commit the murders to further kidnapping or burglary. Indeed, he argues, the murders could not have facilitated the kidnapping because that offense had ended before the shootings occurred. Neither argument is persuasive. ¶25 In State v. Moore, the defendant, like Hardy, 10 committed a burglary in order to kill the victims inside a residence. 222 Ariz. 1, 6 ¶¶ 6-9, 12 ¶ 49, 213 P.3d 150, 155, 161 (2009). We upheld the felony murder convictions, rejecting Moore’s contention that those convictions “cannot be based on a burglary intended solely to murder the victim.” Id. at 14 ¶ 62, 213 P.3d at 163. We held that felony murder may “be predicated on a burglary that is based on the intent to murder”; it does not “require the predicate offense to be separate or independent from the homicide.” Id. at ¶¶ 61-62. ¶26 That reasoning pertains here and leads to the same result. Because Arizona’s felony murder statute applies when the predicate offense of burglary is undertaken with the intent to murder the victim, it follows that the statute likewise applies if the predicate offense is kidnapping based on intent to aid in committing a murder. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1105(A)(2), -1304(A)(3), -1507(A), -1508(A). And because the victims’ deaths resulted from Hardy’s actions taken to facilitate his accomplishment of the predicate felonies, the deaths were in the course of and in furtherance of those offenses. See Lacy, 187 Ariz. at 349-50, 929 P.3d at 1297-98; Arias, 131 Ariz. at 443, 641 P.2d at 1287. ¶27 Hardy’s argument that the predicate felonies were too far removed from the murders also fails. A predicate felony that “transpired immediately preceding [a] shooting,” when “the 11 shooting occurred in rapid sequence and as a part of the chain of events which defendant’s deliberate acts set in motion,” is not so far removed from a death that it precludes a finding of felony murder. State v. Hitchcock, 87 Ariz. 277, 280, 350 P.2d 681, 683 (1960). Even if the kidnapping ended when Hardy released Meleigha,4 that fact does not change the result. Hardy pushed Meleigha up the stairs, entered the apartment, immediately walked down the hallway, located Tiffany and Don, and began to shoot. The “shooting occurred in rapid sequence and as a part of the chain of events” of Hardy’s other felonious actions. Hitchcock, 87 Ariz. at 280, 350 P.2d at 683. The trial court did not err in denying Hardy’s motion for judgment of acquittal.