State v. Burger, 1 CA-CR 21-0139

In Feb 2018 a parked vehicle in Paradise Valley was burglarized and two credit cards were taken; surveillance and license-plate data placed Jessica Burger’s SUV near the scene that morning.
Surveillance from a Scottsdale Walmart showed Burger, her boyfriend (J.C.), and another person arriving together; J.C. used one stolen card at 10:42 a.m., Burger used the other at 10:55 a.m. and 11:11 a.m., and all left together; Burger also used one card later at a Phoenix Walgreens.
At arrest and interview, Burger identified herself in the videos but claimed the cards belonged to a former roommate’s mother who had authorized her to use them; police found that explanation implausible.
The State charged multiple counts from both a 2017 home burglary and this 2018 vehicle burglary; Burger was convicted at trial of the vehicle-related counts (Counts 7–10) and other counts from 2017; one count related to the vehicle burglary was dismissed pretrial.
On appeal Burger challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence for Counts 7 (third-degree burglary), 8 (taking identity), and 9–10 (theft of a credit card); the Court reviewed for substantial evidence and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Third-degree burglary (Count 7)	Surveillance, timing, presence in SUV, and card use support that Burger entered or aided the burglary (accomplice liability).	Insufficient evidence to prove Burger entered or intended theft; mere presence not enough.	Affirmed — substantial circumstantial evidence supports guilt as principal or accomplice.
Taking identity (Count 8)	Burger knowingly used others’ personal identifying information (credit cards) without consent to commit unlawful acts.	Burger had permission — cards belonged to roommate’s mother who allegedly authorized use.	Affirmed — possession/use of stolen cards and implausible explanation permitted conviction.
Theft of a credit card (Counts 9–10)	Burger controlled and used the credit cards without consent and knew or should have known they were stolen.	Claimed lawful control/permission as repayment for a debt.	Affirmed — jury rejected defense; evidence supports findings.

State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277 (governs de novo review of sufficiency and substantial-evidence standard)
State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60 (defines substantial evidence as what reasonable persons could accept to support guilt)
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (no evidentiary distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence for mental state)
State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485 (instructs courts to draw all reasonable inferences supporting the verdict)
State v. Noriega, 187 Ariz. 282 (mental state typically inferred from surrounding behaviors and circumstances)
State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555 (jury need not accept defendant’s exculpatory testimony)