State v. Davis, 226 Ariz. 97

Davis was convicted by a jury of a single count of misdemeanor public sexual indecency; the court suspended sentence, placed him on three years of probation, and required lifetime sex-offender registration.
Davis was originally charged with three felonies and three misdemeanors; only count two (public sexual indecency) went to trial and resulted in a conviction.
The victim testified Davis drove up, gestured, and masturbated in his vehicle before leaving; Davis presented misidentification and alibi defenses.
Davis moved for a new trial asserting weight-of-the-evidence and that defense closing argument was limited to eight minutes; the trial court denied both motions.
On appeal, Davis challenged (i) weight-of-the-evidence denial, (ii) eight-minute closing argument limit, and (iii) sex-offender registration; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the verdict against the weight of the evidence?	Davis argues the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence.	State contends the verdict was supported by substantial evidence.	No abuse of discretion; evidence supported guilt.
Did the eight-minute closing argument limit prejudice Davis?	Davis claims the limit prevented full argument and biased the result.	State argues limits were necessary and counsel argued effectively.	Not fundamental error; limitation not preserved for appeal; relief denied.
Was Davis properly ordered to register as a sex offender?	Davis argues registration was improper for a first, only misdemeanor conviction.	State asserts the court had statutory authority to require registration.	Court properly exercised discretion; registration upheld.

State v. Thornton, 172 Ariz. 449 (App. 1992) (review of new-trial denial for abuse of discretion when weight-of-evidence present)
State v. Clifton, 134 Ariz. 345 (App. 1982) (discretion in granting a new trial where verdict not supported by weight)
State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1 (1989) (evidence sufficient to support a guilty verdict; standard for weight review)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental-error standard; timely objection required to preserve issue)
Bruno v. San Xavier Rock & Sand Co., 76 Ariz. 250 (App. 1953) (untimely objections do not preserve issues unless futile; strategic considerations)
Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (closing argument right; limits must not deprive meaningful opportunity)