State v. Griffet, 1 CA-CR 16-0240

Defendant Phillip Meril Griffet was indicted for sexual conduct with a minor under 15 (A.R.S. § 13-1405) after a witness observed a seven-year-old naked from the waist down with legs open in Griffet’s vehicle and Griffet’s head near the child’s vagina.
The jury also heard DNA evidence: the victim’s underwear contained Y-STR DNA matching Griffet’s buccal swab.
The jury found Griffet guilty; the superior court sentenced him to life with no release for 35 years.
During deliberations, jurors used a laptop to view admitted surveillance footage and discovered a CD in the drive labeled as containing “Witness interviews” that appeared to identify the victim’s guardians.
Jurors did not play the CD; they immediately summoned the bailiff, who retrieved it. The foreman testified the jury did not discuss the CD and understood it was not part of the evidence.
Griffet moved for judgment of acquittal (directed verdict) and, separately, for a new trial alleging juror misconduct due to the CD; both motions were denied and he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for sexual conduct with a minor	State: witness testimony plus DNA allowed reasonable inference of oral sexual contact	Griffet: evidence insufficient; jury should not infer oral contact from witness observations	Court: Evidence (witness testimony and DNA) was substantial; denial of Rule 20 motion affirmed
Juror misconduct from discovery of labeled CD during deliberations	State: jurors did not receive or consider extrinsic evidence; no prejudice	Griffet: label indicated unadmitted witness interviews were available; that could have tainted deliberations	Court: No showing jurors received/considered extrinsic evidence; jurors didn’t play or discuss CD; no prejudice shown; denial of new-trial motion affirmed

State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191 (discussing substantial evidence and standard for Rule 20 acquittal)
State v. Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. 254 (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (appellate review of Rule 20 de novo and limits on weighing inferences)
State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590 (on resolving inferences against defendant when viewing evidence favorably to verdict)
State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442 (prejudice presumption and burden if jurors received extrinsic evidence)
State v. Olague, 240 Ariz. 475 (defendant must prove jurors received and considered extrinsic evidence)
State v. Marshall, 197 Ariz. 496 (definition/distinction regarding vulva and vagina in sexual-offense context)