State v. Brents, 1 CA-CR 16-0506

In October 2014, while incarcerated in Navajo County Jail, Brandy Lee Brents covered his cell window; officers ordered him to remove it and he threatened anyone entering his cell. When officers entered, Brents struck Officer J.T., then struck and struggled with Officer J.L.; a Taser was used to subdue him.
The State charged Brents with three counts of aggravated assault (one count for causing physical injury to J.L. and two counts for touching J.L. and J.T. with intent to injure/insult/provoke), and alleged historical prior felonies.
Brents testified he acted in self-defense, claiming officers attacked him and tased him; he also acknowledged a prior false claim against officers shown by video.
The prosecution sought to admit prior uncharged jail incidents to prove intent and rebut self-defense; the court admitted them with a limiting instruction.
The jury convicted Brents on all counts; the superior court found prior felonies and imposed concurrent presumptive five-year sentences. Brents appealed; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brents)	Held
Double jeopardy: two convictions relating to J.L.	Separate statutory elements support separate convictions (assault causing injury vs. knowing touching with intent)	Single contact/touch cannot support convictions under both subsections	Affirmed: record supported separate contacts (punch and continued struggle) so no Blockburger violation
Admission of other-act evidence (Rule 404/403)	Prior jail incidents admissible to show intent and to rebut self-defense; probative value outweighs prejudice	Evidence was improper propensity proof and unduly prejudicial	Affirmed: other-act evidence was offered for proper purposes, relevant, probative, and not unfairly prejudicial; limiting instruction given
Exclusion of portions of defendant's testimony as hearsay	Objections to Brents recounting out-of-court statements; court sustained some hearsay objections	Excluded testimony related to officer statements and threats was non-hearsay (state of mind) or opposing-party statements; exclusion impaired defense	Court erred in excluding some statements offered to show Brents's state of mind, but error was harmless because substance of defense (provocation, attack, Taser) was admitted and Brents could fully present defense

State v. Jurden, 239 Ariz. 526 (Arizona 2016) (Double Jeopardy principles discussed)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test for same-offense double jeopardy analysis)
State v. Gamez, 227 Ariz. 445 (App. 2011) (standard of review for motions in limine)
State v. VanWinkle, 230 Ariz. 387 (2012) (admissibility of other-act evidence to rebut self-defense and show intent)
State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536 (1997) (framework for admitting other-act evidence under Rules 402, 403, 404(b))
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (2006) (presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions)
State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484 (2013) (viewing facts in the light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
State v. Rogovich, 188 Ariz. 38 (1997) (distinguishing non-hearsay offered for non-truth purposes)
State v. Chavez, 225 Ariz. 442 (App. 2010) (statements not hearsay when not offered for truth)