State v. Rhone

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JEFFERY CRAIG RHONE, II, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0650
FILED 01-13-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2019-112450-001
The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Christine A. Davis
Counsel for Appellee

Brown & Little PLC, Chandler
By Matthew O. Brown
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. RHONE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Veronika Fabian joined.

F O S T E R, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Jeffery Craig Rhone, II appeals his convictions and
sentences for two counts of second-degree murder, one count of first-degree
burglary, four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one
count of endangerment and one count of tampering with physical evidence.
Rhone argues the court erred in permitting the State to impeach a victim’s
testimony through its detective. This Court affirms.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1

¶2 In the early afternoon of March 19, 2019, Rhone, the victim
Brian , and several of Brian’s family members and friends were at Brian’s
2

home. While the group gathered, Rhone accused Brian’s brother of stealing
his wallet. A short physical altercation occurred and ended with Rhone
leaving the residence. Rhone returned about two hours later and another
fight ensued, this time with Brian. Family members broke up the fight and
Rhone left again.

¶3 Rhone returned to the home for the third time and knocked
on the door. When the door opened, Rhone entered and revealed a gun,
which he waved around in an agitated fashion. Those in the home
attempted to de-escalate the situation but Rhone began shooting. Rhone
shot Brian and four other victims before fleeing. Two victims died from
their injuries.

¶4 The State charged Rhone with twelve counts: two counts of
first-degree murder, class 1 dangerous felonies; one count of first-degree
burglary, a class 2 dangerous felony; four counts of aggravated assault with

1 This Court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining

the jury’s verdict and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the
defendant.” State v. Fierro, 254 Ariz. 35, 38, ¶ 2 (2022).
2 This Court uses pseudonyms to protect the identity of victims and

witnesses. See, e.g., State v. Agueda, 253 Ariz. 388, 389, ¶ 2 n.1 (2022).

2
 STATE v. RHONE
Decision of the Court

a deadly weapon, class 3 dangerous felonies; two counts of disorderly
conduct, class 6 dangerous felonies; one count of disorderly conduct, a class
1 misdemeanor; one count of endangerment, a class 6 dangerous felony;
and one count of tampering with physical evidence, a class 6 felony. Before
trial, the State dismissed the misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct.

¶5 In preparation for trial, the State sought to have Brian testify.
After the incident, Brian began serving time for a crime unrelated to
Rhone’s charges. To secure Brian’s attendance at trial, the State filed a
motion with the court. The court granted the State’s motion and ordered
Brian’s appearance at trial by force, if necessary. Brian attended as ordered.
At trial, the State asked Brian if he knew the consequences for testifying in
court as an inmate. Brian replied: “Plead the Fifth.” After answering some
questions regarding his transportation to court, Brian stated he was “not
here by choice” and he “was forced here.” The State continued with direct
examination and the following exchange occurred:

Q: Okay. Now, I want to talk to you about events on March
19th of 2019, okay, that happened at your house. When you
were at the house that night, were you with your dad and
your brothers?

A: I don’t recall nothing from that night.

The State then sought a break. After dismissal of the jury, counsel for the
State asked Brian if he would continue testifying that he had no memory of
the incident. Brian stated he would.

¶6 After the jury returned, the State resumed its questioning. In
response, Brian confirmed his father’s name, affirmed he had two brothers,
one of which was now deceased from the incident and identified Rhone as
the defendant. Brian also admitted he used drugs the night of the incident.
When the State asked Brian whether he sustained a gunshot wound in the
neck during the incident, Brian stated:

A: I don’t want to answer no more further questions.

Q: Okay. Do you recall doing an interview with a detective
after [the shooting]?

A: No, ma’am.

Q: Okay. And do you recall talking to the detective and
telling the detective what happened?

3
 STATE v. RHONE
Decision of the Court

A: No, ma’am.

After the State finished direct examination, Rhone’s counsel declined to
cross-examine him.

¶7 The State later called a detective who worked on the case to
testify. The detective testified that he interviewed Brian after the incident
and Brian provided details about the incident as part of that interview. The
detective also testified that during the interview Brian did not disclose he
used drugs on the day of the incident. The State then asked the detective
what Brian told him “had been going on in the house earlier that evening?”
Rhone’s counsel objected on grounds of hearsay due to improper
impeachment.

¶8 After the objection, the parties discussed whether the State
properly laid the foundation to impeach Brian through the detective’s
testimony. Following discussion, the court found the detective’s testimony
about Brian’s prior statements was admissible as prior statements for
impeachment. The court overruled Rhone’s objection and determined that
Brian feigned memory loss as to the incident. Trial continued and after the
State's direct examination, Rhone’s counsel cross-examined the detective.

¶9 After the close of the State’s case, Rhone’s counsel moved for
judgment of acquittal on the two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon, two counts of disorderly conduct (the counts designated as class 6
dangerous felonies) and the one count of endangerment. The court granted
the motion as to the two counts of disorderly conduct, but it denied Rhone’s
request as to the remaining counts.

¶10 The court submitted the case to the jury. The jury failed to find
Rhone guilty of first-degree murder but found him guilty of the lesser
offense of second-degree murder on both murder counts. The jury also
found Rhone guilty of the remaining counts as charged. The court
sentenced Rhone to consecutive 20-year terms of imprisonment on the
second-degree murder counts, with additional concurrent sentences for the
remaining convictions. It credited Rhone with 1,964 days of presentence
incarceration credit.

¶11 Rhone timely appealed and this Court has jurisdiction under
the Arizona Constitution article VI, section 9 and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1),
13-4031 and -4033(A).

DISCUSSION

4
 STATE v. RHONE
Decision of the Court

¶12 Rhone’s sole argument on appeal challenges the State’s
impeachment of Brian’s statements through the detective. This Court
reviews the superior court’s admission of evidence for an abuse of
discretion. State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268, 275 (1994). Because Rhone objected
to the court’s admission of the detective’s hearsay and impeachment
testimony at trial, this Court considers the superior court’s ruling under a
harmless error standard. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 18 (2005).
Harmless error review requires the State to prove “beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.”
Id.

¶13 Rhone claims the court erred because the State failed to: (1)
refresh Brian’s recollection, (2) indicate it would seek to impeach Brian with
his prior statements and (3) disclose that it would be attempting to impeach
Brian via the detective’s testimony. The State counters that because Rhone’s
appeal does not challenge the court’s determination that Brian feigned his
memory loss, Rhone concedes the court properly allowed the detective’s
testimony.

¶14 Arizona Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 613(b) 3 permits the
admission of a prior inconsistent statement (1) “only if the witness is given
an opportunity to explain or deny the statement” and (2) “an adverse party
is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so
requires.” Ariz. R. Evid. 613(b) (2012). But when a witness asserts a loss of
memory and the court believes the witness is faking or feigning the memory
loss, the prior inconsistent statement may be admitted in the discretion of
the trial court. King, 180 Ariz. at 275 (court properly admitted an
inconsistent statement when witness continually testified his inability to
remember facts but the record supported the witness’s feigned memory);
State v. Joe, 234 Ariz. 26, 29, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (citations omitted); Ariz. R.
Evid. 801(d)(1)(A).

¶15 Here, the court concluded that Brian feigned memory loss of
the events that occurred on March 19. The following facts support the
court’s conclusion: Brian (1) pled the Fifth when asked about the
consequences of inmates testifying, (2) claimed he was forced to be at trial,
(3) said he did not recall anything from the night of the incident and claimed
no memory of it, (4) stated his response for everything that happened that

3 Arizona Rule of Evidence 613(b) was amended in 2024 with an effective

date of January 1, 2025. Because trial occurred before the amendment, this
Court applies the version that was effective before that date.

5
 STATE v. RHONE
Decision of the Court

night would be he did not remember and (5) informed the prosecutor he
did not want to answer any further questions.

¶16 Rhone did not challenge the court’s finding that Brian feigned
memory at trial. Instead, Rhone only objected to the admission of the
detective’s testimony about Brian’s prior statements on the grounds of
improper impeachment and hearsay. The court overruled the objection
citing Rule 801 and 613. Following this ruling, Rhone’s counsel sought
clarification on whether the court would limit the scope of the detective’s
testimony. The court declined to limit the testimony, explained that it
would hear objections as they came up and would rule accordingly based
on the circumstances. After that ruling, Rhone’s counsel objected three
times during the detective’s testimony citing hearsay. Twice, the court
sustained Rhone’s objection for hearsay when the questions elicited
statements made to Brian from another person that Brian then relayed to
the detective (double hearsay). The third objection involved hearsay
statements that related to Brian’s feigned memory and the court overruled
that objection.

¶17 By failing to object to the court’s feigned memory
determination, Rhone waives any argument that the court erred in allowing
the detective to testify about Brian’s prior statements under 801(d)(1)(A).
See State v. Nirschel, 155 Ariz. 206, 208 (1987) (failure to argue a claim
constitutes waiver). Rhone’s appeal is limited to the State’s use of extrinsic
evidence. See id.

¶18 Applying King to these facts, impeachment by extrinsic
evidence via the detective’s testimony was permissible under Rule 613(b).
See Joe, 234 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 16 (admission of prior inconsistent statement was
proper to impeach witness who declined to answer questions at trial); see
also State v. Robinson, 165 Ariz. 51, 58–59 (1990) (the State may impeach its
own witness). Though Rhone objected on hearsay grounds, the court
properly denied the objection based on its determination that Brian had
feigned memory loss.

¶19 But even viewing the court’s admission of the detective’s
hearsay testimony as error, any error was harmless. State v. Anthony, 218
Ariz. 439, 446, ¶ 41 (2008) (“find[ing] error harmless when the evidence
against a defendant is so overwhelming that any reasonable jury could only
have reached one conclusion”). The record shows the State presented
overwhelming evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Another witness and
victim, Jacob, provided similar testimony to that introduced by the
detective’s testimony. Jacob identified Rhone at trial, testified about the

6
 STATE v. RHONE
Decision of the Court

altercations leading up to the incident, explained Rhone potentially
sustained a busted nose or lip from the altercations, described how he and
the four other victims were shot and stated that he and the others were
using drugs that night. Jacob testified that Rhone shot the two deceased
victims who received injuries to the head and torso respectively. The
medical examiner confirmed the injuries and cause of death. The State also
entered seven bullet casings and five bullets recovered from the scene into
evidence, all of which came from the same type of firearm. And a case
agent, who responded the night of the incident, identified Rhone and
confirmed that pictures he presented to the jury were from the home where
the incident occurred. Finally, another detective testified that a gun residue
test found residue on Rhone’s hands. Even absent the detective’s testimony
regarding Brian’s statements, Jacob’s testimony and other evidence
overwhelmingly supports the jury’s verdict. See State v. Moody, 208 Ariz.
424, 457, ¶ 132 (2004) (an error is harmless when the error could not affect
the jury’s verdict). Therefore, any error was harmless.

CONCLUSION

¶20 This Court affirms.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

7