State v. Brown

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DUSTIN KEITH BROWN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0086
FILED 10-22-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. S1300CR202380164
The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Phillip A. Tomas
Counsel for Appellee

Michael J. Dew, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. BROWN
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe
joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Dustin Brown appeals his conviction for criminal damage, a
class 6 felony. For the following reasons, we affirm his conviction.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Brown was an inmate in the Yavapai County Jail. While using
one of the jail’s videophone kiosks, Brown punched, elbowed, and kneed
the kiosk until it was inoperable. The repair technician who later inspected
the kiosk found it so damaged he had to replace it entirely. The technician
then followed his usual process: he emailed his employer to request an
invoice for the repairs he completed, and his employer sent back an invoice
that he then reviewed.

¶3 At trial, the State called the repair technician to testify to the
amount of damage Brown caused to the videophone kiosk. Without first
looking at the repair invoice, the technician testified that it cost $1,800 to
repair the kiosk. Defense counsel objected for hearsay, but the court
overruled the objection because the technician requested the invoice and
had personal knowledge of the cost of repair.

¶4 The State then sought to clarify the specific amount of the
repair cost by showing the technician the invoice. The technician responded
that seeing the invoice would not help him remember the specific number—
he was not aware of costs because he did not generate the invoice himself.
Defense counsel objected for hearsay and foundation. The court overruled
both objections, again finding that the technician testified as to his
knowledge.

¶5 The State asked the technician again if seeing the invoice
would refresh his memory of the exact cost of repairing the phone kiosk.
The technician said yes. Defense counsel again objected for hearsay and
foundation, and the court again overruled. The technician then reviewed

2
 STATE v. BROWN
Decision of the Court

the invoice and testified that the exact cost of repair was $1,862.00. Neither
party moved the invoice into evidence.

¶6 The jury convicted Brown of criminal damage, a class 6 felony
and Brown timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 A person commits criminal damage by recklessly defacing or
damaging property of another person. A.R.S. § 13-1602(A)(1). Criminal
damage is a class 6 felony if the amount of the damage is $1,000 or more,
but less than $2,000. A.R.S. § 13-1602(B)(4). The State bears the burden of
establishing the amount of damage. State v. Brockell, 187 Ariz. 226, 229 (App.
1996).

¶8 Brown asserts the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence
of the amount of damage he caused to the videophone kiosk. He notes the
State failed to introduce the invoice into evidence; thus, the repair
technician’s testimony was the sole evidence of the amount of damage.
Brown argues that testimony was hearsay. The sufficiency of evidence thus
depends on whether the technician’s testimony was admissible.

I. Admissibility of the Technician’s Testimony

¶9 We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State
v. Johnson, 212 Ariz. 425, 433, ¶ 25 (2006).

¶10 Brown argues “the only evidence the jury heard as to the
amount of damages was the reading by the IT technician of [the employer’s]
calculation.” Not so. The technician testified to an approximate repair cost
of $1,800 before the State showed him the invoice. That testimony was
admissible.

¶11 A witness may testify to a matter if evidence is introduced
sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of
the matter. Ariz. R. Evid. 602. The technician testified that he had two years’
experience with his employer, 18 months of which had been spent
maintaining and repairing the jail’s phone kiosks. His daily responsibilities
included monitoring and maintaining the videophone kiosks. He testified
to his extensive experience with and knowledge of the videophone kiosk
systems at the jail. And he personally installed the videophone kiosks about
six months before the incident.

3
 STATE v. BROWN
Decision of the Court

¶12 The superior court did not abuse its discretion by concluding
that the technician’s initial testimony came from his personal knowledge.
See State v. Printz, 125 Ariz. 300, 302–03 (1980) (police officer could testify to
value of stolen television based on past experience inquiring into costs of
similar televisions).

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶13 We review the sufficiency of evidence de novo but view the
facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict. State v. West, 226
Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). We will uphold the conviction if “any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357, ¶ 22 (2007) (quoting
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). We thus test the sufficiency of
the evidence against the statutorily required elements of the offense. See
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).

¶14 The only element in question here is the amount of damage.
And based on the technician’s admissible testimony of the approximate
value of the repairs he performed and his years of experience, the jury was
“permitted to utilize its common sense” in finding that Brown caused over
$1,000 in damage to the videophone kiosk. See Printz, 125 Ariz. at 304.
Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, the
technician’s initial testimony provided sufficient reasonable evidence to
support the verdict.

CONCLUSION

¶15 We affirm Brown’s conviction.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AGFV

4