Opinion ID: 2785783
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The ultimate question is whether, on the facts recounted above, it was objectively unreasonable for the Arizona trial court to deny Kyzar’s sufficiency of the evidence claim. We think not. Kyzar was convicted of conspiracy to commit a dangerous or deadly assault by a prisoner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1206.2 The elements of this crime come, in part, from Arizona’s criminal conspiracy statute, which provides: A person commits conspiracy if, with the intent to promote or aid the commission of an offense, such person agrees with one or more persons that at least one of them or another person will engage in conduct constituting the offense and one of the parties commits an overt act in furtherance of the offense, except that an overt act shall not be required if the object of the conspiracy was to commit any felony upon the person of another, or to commit an offense under § 13-1508 [first- degree burglary] or 13-1704 [arson]. 2 Kyzar’s acquittal on two other counts—aiding a dangerous or deadly assault by a prisoner and promoting prison contraband—proves nothing about whether the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support his conviction for a different crime. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67 (1984) (holding that sufficiency of the evidence review “should be independent of the jury’s determination that evidence on another count was insufficient”). 20 KYZAR V. RYAN A.R.S. § 13-1003(A). The object of the alleged conspiracy in this case—i.e., a dangerous or deadly assault—constitutes a “felony upon the person of another,” so the State was not required to prove that Cropper, Kyzar, or any other coconspirator took an overt act in furtherance of their unlawful objective. Kyzar’s habeas claim boils down to whether there was sufficient evidence to find that he: (1) “inten[ded] to promote or aid the commission of [the assault]” and (2) “agree[d] with one or more persons that at least one of them or another person [would commit the assault].” Id. The most damaging evidence on these elements is Kyzar’s conversation with Cropper about obtaining a knife. The Arizona trial court could reasonably find that the combination of Cropper’s stabbing motion and Kyzar’s questions—“Well, are you sure about this? How much time you got, homeboy?”— demonstrated that Kyzar knew Cropper intended to assault someone with the knife rather than keep it for possible selfdefense. There was also evidence that Kyzar had given Cropper a knife in the past. In light of this history, Kyzar’s questions to Cropper could reasonably be construed to suggest that he was concerned about something more serious than Cropper possibly getting caught with prison contraband. Further, Long, whom Cropper sent to summon Kyzar, knew of Cropper’s tirade and had said that there needed to be a “fallout.” The jury could infer that Long communicated that background to Kyzar before the latter arrived at Cropper’s cell and heard his request.3 3 As for Cropper’s warning that Kyzar and Gieslin needed to “get off the yard,” the most we can say about this ambiguous expression is that it does not suggest that Cropper was seeking to obtain a knife for purposes of self-defense. KYZAR V. RYAN 21 Knowing that Cropper wanted a knife to assault someone, Kyzar used his authority over the other white inmates to enlist Brice in the effort to help Cropper obtain a specific knife—i.e., a shank that Cropper and Kyzar understood to be “the good one” because it had a handle. Kyzar was also present when Gieslin asked Fipps to see if everything in Long’s cell was being handled. A jury could reasonably find that Kyzar knew what was supposed to be happening in Long’s cell. After all, Kyzar had set in motion a plan for Long to obtain a knife shortly after Cropper said he wanted one and, the jury could infer, had an opportunity to hear the background circumstances from Long. Kyzar’s comment to Brice while they were waiting to reenter Building 26 after the murder also provides evidence from which the jury could infer that Kyzar knew Cropper wanted a knife to harm someone rather than simply for selfdefense. Guards who were crying and yelling at Cropper as he and three other inmates were taken out of Building 26 in restraints. Kyzar reacted to these events by telling Brice to keep his mouth shut. The jury could infer from Kyzar’s statement that he knew his earlier instruction to Brice to help Long find a knife was part of a larger plan connected to Cropper that had come to fruition. On these facts, the Arizona trial court did not apply Jackson in an objectively unreasonable fashion when it rejected Kyzar’s sufficiency of the evidence claim. The State presented evidence at trial suggesting that Kyzar knew Cropper intended to attack someone, agreed to help him obtain a knife, and even took an overt act in furtherance of this conspiracy. Kyzar was more than merely present while other inmates engaged in criminal activity, so his reliance on 22 KYZAR V. RYAN Piaskowski v. Bett, 256 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2001), is misplaced. After reviewing the full trial record, we cannot say that Kyzar’s sufficiency of the evidence claim was so meritorious that, by rejecting it, the Arizona trial court committed “an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786–87; see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 410 (emphasizing that “an unreasonable application of federal law” is a more serious error than “an incorrect application of federal law”). Therefore, under AEDPA, Kyzar is not entitled to habeas relief.