State v. Harden, 1 CA-CR 16-0371

On March 3, 2013, three armed intruders in tactical gear forced entry into N.V.’s home, threatened occupants (N.V. and D.Z.), ransacked bedrooms, and stole guns, watches, phones and electronics.
Victims identified Charles D’Mon Harden from photo lineups the evening of the crime; police seized camouflage pants, a badge, and photos of Harden in tactical gear from his apartment.
Harden and two codefendants (Steagall and Childress) were charged with first-degree burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault, theft, and related counts; a weapons count was tried separately.
After a 21-day jury trial Harden was convicted on the charged counts (and later pled to the weapons count); the court found aggravating circumstances and imposed aggravated concurrent sentences totaling lengthy prison terms.
Harden appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying severance and that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was present at the crimes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of motion to sever joinder of trials	State: joinder proper because each defendant was charged with each offense and evidence overlapped	Harden: defenses were antagonistic/mutually exclusive and evidence against codefendants would "rub off" on him	Court: Denial of severance affirmed — joinder proper; defenses not mutually exclusive and instructions cured any rub-off prejudice
Sufficiency of the evidence of Harden’s presence	State: eyewitness IDs plus matching clothing/badge/photographs and recovered property support conviction	Harden: insufficient evidence he was present; alibi invoked	Court: Evidence sufficient — prompt eyewitness identifications and physical items from Harden’s apartment supported jury verdict

State v. Prince, 204 Ariz. 156 (discusses standard for abuse of discretion on severance)
State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9 (joint trials are the rule; severance required only for compelling prejudice)
State v. Cruz, 137 Ariz. 541 (mutually exclusive defenses standard for severance)
State v. Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125 (rub-off effect and juror instruction sufficiency)
State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Borquez, 232 Ariz. 484 (definition of sufficient evidence and appellate review limits)
State v. Arredondo, 155 Ariz. 314 (standard for overturning verdict for insufficiency)
State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484 (viewing facts in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)