State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery, 230 Ariz. 536

Lowery, Michigan conviction for criminal sexual conduct (2009) required registration in Michigan.
In 2010, Lowery was encountered in Tucson; detective learned he was a Michigan-registered sex offender.
Lowery admitted not registering in Pima County within ten days after entering, citing not having been in the area ten days.
Lowery was charged with failure to register as a sex offender; Rule 20 motion denied; convicted and sentenced to 1 year.
Appellant argues: (a) insufficient evidence, (b) trial-judge error from detective’s statutory interpretation testimony, (c) equal-protection challenge to § 13-3821.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for ten-day presence in Pima County	Lowery	State	Evidence supports conviction; substantial evidence showed presence over ten days; jury credibility assessment upheld.
Fundamental error from detective interpreting § 13-3821	Lowery	Cravatzo’s testimony admissible; jurors instructed on law; no prejudicial error shown	Even if error occurred, no fundamental prejudice; no reversible error shown.
Constitutionality of § 13-3821 under equal protection	Lowery	Rational-basis statute; not a suspect class; no violation	Statute sustained under rational-basis review; not unconstitutional.

State v. Lopez, 230 Ariz. 15 (Ariz. 2012) (substantial evidence standard for sufficiency; appellate review applicable)
State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277 (Ariz. 1997) (beyond-reasonable-doubt standard; evidentiary review)
State v. Arredondo, 155 Ariz. 314 (Ariz. 1987) (circumstantial evidence supports multiple reasonable inferences)
Henderson v. State, 210 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 2005) (fundamental-error standard requiring prejudice showings on unpreserved errors)
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (Ariz. 2006) (prejudice presumed in fundamental-error analysis; evaluating prejudice)
Kuntz v. State, 209 Ariz. 276 (Ariz. 2004) (elements-based approach to whether out-of-state conduct triggers registration )