Opinion ID: 4525104
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶22 Allen argues the State failed to prove the especially cruel aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the jury’s finding for an abuse of discretion and will uphold it if substantial supporting evidence exists. State v. Gunches, 225 Ariz. 22, 25 ¶¶ 13–14 (2010). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s finding. Id. ¶ 14. ¶23 Allen first argues that the jury necessarily speculated to conclude A.D. was conscious long enough to experience physical or mental pain, distress, or anguish before dying. We disagree. Although Dr. Keen testified he had no way of knowing how long A.D. remained conscious, evidence showed she remained conscious long enough to suffer. See State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 463 ¶ 184 (2016) (stating that the cruelty aggravator does not require “the victim’s suffering [to] have lasted for any specific length of time”). She was conscious when placed inside the box. Allen admitted that A.D. had been confined in the box multiple times before for “a couple of hours” at a time and she was conscious and alert when released. A.D.’s sister testified that on one occasion when A.D. was confined inside the box, Allen tossed it around with her in it, and she emerged conscious. Thus, although some evidence suggests A.D. fell 8 STATE V. ALLEN Opinion of the Court asleep soon after being locked in the box, a reasonable jury could find she remained conscious and alert for enough time to suffer physically and/or mentally before she died. ¶24 Next, Allen argues that insufficient evidence supports a conclusion A.D. suffered extreme physical pain. Before examining the evidence, we reject Allen’s unsupported assertion that the State was required to show that A.D. suffered “extreme” physical pain to prove the cruelty aggravator. See State v. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497, 511 ¶ 67 (2007) (rejecting the same argument), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Ferrero, 229 Ariz. 239, 243 ¶ 20 (2012). It is enough that A.D. suffered physical pain. Id. ¶25 Substantial evidence exists that A.D. experienced physical pain while confined inside the box. She died from asphyxia compounded by dehydration. Allen correctly notes that “death by asphyxiation is not per se especially cruel.” See State v. Snelling, 225 Ariz. 182, 189 ¶ 33 (2010). But Snelling does not preclude such a finding, and the evidence here supports one. ¶26 A.D. was forced into a box that was twenty-one inches shorter than her height. This occurred after she was forced to engage in hours of rigorous physical acts, including backbends that made her cry and complain of pain, which Dr. Keen attributed to muscle fatigue. See Goudeau, 239 Ariz. at 464 ¶ 184 (“We consider the entire murder transaction, not merely the fatal act, in evaluating whether a murder was committed in an especially cruel manner.”). She had bruises and abrasions on both her legs, including abrasions on her right knee consistent with being pressed against the box lid. According to Dr. Keen, A.D. asphyxiated due to decreased air availability in the box together with being in a chin-down position that restricted her “ability to have air exchange.” It was also at least 97 degrees inside the box, and A.D. was covered in sweat when she was removed from it. Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could find A.D. suffered physical pain by being stuffed inside a hot, cramped box in an uncomfortable position that restricted her movements and breathing after already suffering muscle fatigue from her prior punishments. ¶27 Although the cruelty aggravator is justified solely by evidence that A.D. suffered physical pain before death, the aggravator is also supported by evidence that A.D. experienced mental pain, distress, or anguish while confined inside the box. Dr. Keen testified that A.D.’s 9 STATE V. ALLEN Opinion of the Court restricted ability to have air exchange would have caused her to work harder to breathe. A reasonable jury could find she tried to ease her breathing by escaping the box, as she had done in the past, and panicked when she could not do so. See id. (“Mental anguish includes the victim’s uncertainty as to her ultimate fate . . . .” (quoting State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 392 (1991)); see also State v. Lynch, 238 Ariz. 84, 106 ¶ 83 (2015) (concluding cruelty aggravator shown by evidence that victim was conscious and secured to chair, indicating he had “ample time to contemplate his fate”), rev’d on other grounds by Lynch v. Arizona, 136 S. Ct. 1818 (2016). ¶28 Allen also argues the State failed to prove he intended that A.D. suffer or knew she would do so. For the reasons explained, see supra ¶¶ 19–21, the State was not required to prove that Allen intended A.D.’s suffering. Instead, it was required to show that he knew or should have known that A.D. would suffer physical or mental pain, distress, or anguish. See Sanders, 245 Ariz. at 126 ¶ 43. ¶29 Echoing his Tison argument, Allen alternately argues the State did not prove he should have known A.D. would suffer physical or mental pain because she had been shut inside the box many times previously without injury. Just as we rejected Allen’s Tison argument, we reject this one. See supra ¶ 15. Whether Allen should have known A.D. would suffer based on the information at hand is an objective inquiry. See Carlson, 202 Ariz. at 582 ¶ 44 (“Foreseeability in connection with the cruelty factor has been based on an objective rather than subjective standard.”). A reasonable person would know that locking a ten-year-old child inside a box, which is twenty-one inches shorter than she is and contains few air holes, overnight in a hot room with no means of escape would cause the child to suffer physical or mental pain. Even if Allen did not intend to fall asleep and leave A.D. inside the box for more than six hours, he should have known that placing her there for any length of time would cause A.D. physical pain and mental anguish. ¶30 In sum, substantial evidence supports a finding that Allen committed the murder in an especially cruel manner. 10 STATE V. ALLEN Opinion of the Court