State v. Carroll

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA ADAM CARROLL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0109
FILED 06-26-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2024-006503-001
The Honorable Kevin B. Wein, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Kyle Fields
Counsel for Appellee

Lorona Mead PLC, Phoenix
By Jess A. Lorona
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.
STATE v. CARROLL
Decision of the Court

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Joshua Carroll, a former Glendale Police Officer, appeals his
conviction for misdemeanor aggravated assault, arguing insufficient
evidence supports it. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Carroll Is Charged with Aggravated Assault for Using
Physical Force While Conducting an Arrest.

¶2 On June 13, 2019, then-Officer Carroll responded to a welfare
call reporting someone apparently asleep or impaired behind the wheel of
a suspicious vehicle parked at an apartment complex. Carroll arrived at the
scene, parked behind the suspicious vehicle, and spoke with its occupant,
Sparks (a pseudonym we use to protect the victim’s privacy) for several
minutes. Carroll asked Sparks to identify himself and explain his presence
at the apartment complex. Sparks gave only his first name and said he was
there to visit a friend. Sparks asked repeatedly whether he could use the
bathroom and whether he was free to leave. Carroll told him he was not
free to leave. After several minutes of back and forth, Carroll requested
non-emergency backup. Several minutes later, Carroll asked for backup to
‘step it up,’ indicating a more urgent need for support.

¶3 Moments after requesting urgent backup, Carroll attempted
to remove Sparks from his vehicle, and a struggle broke out. Carroll
attempted to subdue Sparks, and Sparks resisted. Ultimately, Carroll
gained physical control over Sparks and handcuffed him. Backup officers
arrived and Sparks was taken to a nearby hospital. A Maricopa County
grand jury indicted Carroll on one count of aggravated assault for his use
of force while arresting Sparks.

B. At Trial, the Parties Dispute the Facts That Would Establish
Whether Carroll’s Use of Force Was Justified.

¶4 The case went to trial in December 2024. The State argued
Carroll committed aggravated assault when he used physical force against
Sparks after Sparks was handcuffed and could no longer resist. See A.R.S.
§ 13-1204(A)(4). Carroll argued he did not commit aggravated assault and
that his actions were justified — either as general self-defense under A.R.S.
§ 13-404(A) or self-defense available to a law enforcement officer under
A.R.S. § 13-409 — because he reasonably feared for his life. The trial focused
on whether: Carroll or Sparks initiated the physical confrontation; Sparks

2
STATE v. CARROLL
Decision of the Court

acted defensively in resisting arrest; and Carroll’s use of force was justified
after Sparks was subdued.

1. Carroll and Sparks Struggle.

¶5 Carroll, after radioing for non-emergency backup and telling
Sparks to stay in his car, opened the driver’s side door of Sparks’ car.
Carroll claimed he did so because Sparks did not comply with his
instruction to keep his hands on the steering wheel, so Sparks “kind of
forced my hand that if he’s not going to keep his hands where I can see
them, then I need to create a way where I can see them.” Carroll also
claimed he opened the door so that Sparks would have fresh air.

¶6 Expert testimony on this subject was unfavorable for Carroll.
Carroll’s expert, Dr. Jeffery Hynes, initially testified Sparks opened the car
door, portraying it as threatening. But on cross-examination, Dr. Hynes
admitted Carroll opened the door. Lon Bartel, the State’s expert, testified
Carroll’s decision to open Sparks’ door, and Carroll’s generally inconsistent
instructions to Sparks, needlessly confused the situation. Officer Shawn
Dirks, who conducted the Glendale Police Department’s review of the
incident, testified Sparks tried to comply with Carroll’s instructions, but
Carroll told Sparks “to first get out of the car, then stay in the car, then get
out of the car, then stay in the car,” which was “very, very confusing.”
Glendale Police Sergeant Bryan Johnson, who interviewed Sparks after the
incident and reviewed footage of the incident, testified Carroll should have
left Sparks’ car door closed and waited for backup.

¶7 Carroll then grabbed Sparks and tried to pull him out of the
car. This was the first physical contact between Carroll and Sparks. Carroll
said he did so because Sparks was brandishing his keys. Bartel and Johnson
both testified Carroll’s decision to grab Sparks was inconsistent with police
training and that he should have waited for backup instead. After Carroll
grabbed Sparks, the men struggled. Carroll repeatedly Tased Sparks.
Carroll struck Sparks in the head with his fists and Taser. Sparks grabbed
Carroll’s arms, tried to wrest the Taser from him, and kicked him. Sparks
also caused his vehicle to reverse into Carroll’s parked police vehicle.

¶8 After Carroll pulled Sparks fully out of the vehicle, he cuffed
one of Sparks’ hands behind his back. Carroll then delivered several more
blows to Sparks’ head. Eventually, Carroll fully handcuffed Sparks.
Carroll’s expert Dr. Hynes admitted Carroll delivered “additional blows”
after both of Sparks’ hands were in handcuffs. Dirks testified Carroll used
his taser as “an instrument” to strike Sparks after Sparks was “bound.”

3
STATE v. CARROLL
Decision of the Court

¶9 Carroll then dropped or threw Sparks to the ground. Carroll
said he picked Sparks up and dragged him to the sidewalk so he would not
be near the running vehicle. He said he was exhausted and collapsed on
top of Sparks to brace his own fall. But Dr. Hynes, Bartel, and Dirks all
testified Carroll threw Sparks down. A neighbor and an officer saw Carroll
on top of Sparks when Sparks was handcuffed and unable to resist, and
Sparks was moaning in pain. Sparks’ head wound required three staples.

2. Carroll Marshaled Testimony Seeking to Show His
Use of Force Was Justified.

¶10 Carroll testified he acted reasonably under the circumstances
because he believed Sparks: (1) might be armed; (2) was likely breaking the
law, either because he was substance-impaired or because he was
trespassing; (3) was uncooperative and unresponsive to questions, likely
due to being substance-impaired; and (4) posed a threat to his safety and
even his life. Carroll said that he made the decision to “go hands on”
because Sparks had “displayed verbal noncompliance” and “displayed
passive aggression.” And he said that he viewed Sparks’ physical
resistance as assault on a police officer, thus justifying his uses of force.

¶11 Dr. Hynes largely agreed with Carroll, saying the “totality of
the circumstances” showed his fear was genuine and his actions reasonable.
He said that Sparks’ resistance to Carroll’s force was aggressive, not
defensive. He also suggested Carroll actually showed restraint, and that he
would have been justified in using deadly force under the circumstances.

¶12 Bartel disagreed. He testified Carroll escalated the situation
and that Sparks’ behavior seemed defensive, not aggressive. Sergeant
Johnson also said, in his opinion, that Sparks was acting defensively, not
threateningly. Bartel and Johnson also testified the video did not show
Carroll informing Sparks he was being detained for inebriation or
performing the standard steps of a DUI investigation, despite Carroll’s later
explanations for the detention.

C. The Jury Cannot Reach a Unanimous Verdict, the Court
Declares a Mistrial, and the Parties Agree to Submit the
Case to the Judge for a Verdict.

¶13 After the parties rested, the jury deliberated and informed the
court it could not reach a unanimous verdict, so the court declared a
mistrial. The parties then agreed the State would designate the aggravated
assault charge as a misdemeanor, Carroll would waive his right to a jury

4
STATE v. CARROLL
Decision of the Court

trial, and the matter would be submitted to the court for a verdict based on
the evidence, testimony, and exhibits previously admitted at trial.

¶14 The court found Carroll guilty of aggravated assault. First, it
found the State proved “the elements of aggravated assault beyond a
reasonable doubt.” The court found that “[w]hile Carroll sat on top of
[Sparks] and at times while [Sparks] had at least one hand in handcuffs,
Carroll repeatedly struck [Sparks] with both his fists and his taser. These
blows caused physical injury including a head wound that bled profusely.”
The court rejected Carroll’s general self-defense and law enforcement self-
defense justifications. It found the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt
“that the force [Carroll] used was greater than reasonably necessary to
defend against the danger” he faced and “that the use of physical force here
was unnecessary.” The court further found the force Carroll used
“included prolonged strikes to the head that continued long after [Sparks]
had been subdued and culminated with Carroll throwing the fully
handcuffed and injured victim to the pavement.” And the court
emphasized that “[i]n the lead-up to the assault and eventual detention of
[Sparks], Carroll issued increasingly confusing commands that needlessly
exacerbated the situation. Rather than wait for backup, it was Carroll who
first opened the door to the car and then initiated the physical encounter by
reaching in and attempting to remove [Sparks] from the vehicle. Notably,
this occurred less than 30 second [sic] after Carroll instructed [Sparks] to
remain in the car, a command that [Sparks] followed.” The court thus
concluded the evidence proved “beyond a reasonable doubt that Carroll’s
actions were not justified,” making him guilty of aggravated assault.

¶15 The court sentenced Carroll to one year of supervised
probation. Carroll timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Ariz. Const.
art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶16 Carroll argues there was insufficient evidence to support the
superior court’s verdict that he committed aggravated assault. Sufficiency
of the evidence is a question of law we review de novo. State v. West, 226
Ariz. 559, 562 ¶ 15 (2011). “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to sustaining the [court’s] verdict[], and resolving all inferences against the
defendant, we must determine whether the state presented evidence that
‘reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Duncan, 257 Ariz.
360, 368 ¶ 10 (App. 2024) (quoting State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 290 (1996)).

5
STATE v. CARROLL
Decision of the Court

¶17 “We will not reverse a trial court’s determination on grounds
of insufficient evidence unless there is a complete absence of probative facts
or where the judgment is contrary to substantial evidence in the record.
Evidence is sufficient if there is more than a scintilla of proof for a
reasonable mind to support the conclusion.” State v. West, 173 Ariz. 602,
610 (App. 1992) (cleaned up).

I. Sufficient Evidence Supported the Court’s Conclusion Carroll
Committed Aggravated Assault.

¶18 Carroll argues “[t]he evidence was insufficient for a rational
trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] committed
aggravated assault.” The State responds that it adequately proved the
elements of aggravated assault. We agree with the State.

¶19 The State bore the burden of presenting evidence sufficient
for a rational jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Carroll
intentionally caused Sparks physical injury while Sparks was physically
restrained or while his capacity to resist was substantially impaired. See
A.R.S. §§ 13-1203, -1204. A person “commits assault” under § 13-1203 by
“[i]ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to
another person.” A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1). That assault is aggravated if
committed “while the victim is bound or otherwise physically restrained or
while the victim’s capacity to resist is substantially impaired.” A.R.S. § 13-
1204(A)(4).

¶20 We agree with the superior court that “[t]here is little dispute
that Carroll’s action[s] meet the definition of aggravated assault.” The
superior court found that “[w]hile Carroll sat on top of [Sparks] and at times
while [Sparks] had at least one hand in handcuffs, Carroll repeatedly struck
[Sparks] with both his fists and his taser. These blows caused physical
injury including a head wound that bled profusely.”

¶21 This was “evidence that ‘reasonable persons could accept as
sufficient to support [the] conclusion of [Carroll’s] guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.’” Duncan, 257 Ariz. at 368 ¶ 10 (quoting Spears, 184 Ariz.
at 290). The court also found Sparks’ capacity to resist was substantially
impaired because he was either fully or partially handcuffed when the
assault occurred – this finding satisfied the statutory elements of
aggravated assault. See A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(4). Because “[w]e will not
reverse a trial court’s determination on grounds of insufficient evidence
unless there is a complete absence of probative facts or [] the judgment is
contrary to substantial evidence in the record,” West, 173 Ariz. at 610, we

6
STATE v. CARROLL
Decision of the Court

conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s conclusion
Carroll committed aggravated assault.

II. Sufficient Evidence Supported the Court’s Finding That the State
Disproved Carroll’s Justification Defenses.

¶22 Carroll argues the State failed to adequately disprove his
justification defenses. He says his actions were justified when judged in the
light of a reasonable officer on the scene. He says the State showed only an
expert disagreement over police tactics, and that “[t]he video evidence, far
from resolving the dispute, was ambiguous.” The State says the court
correctly found Carroll’s justifications disproved beyond a reasonable
doubt. It says the court rightly concluded that “Carroll’s force was neither
reasonably necessary nor immediately necessary,” and that Carroll’s
assertion that the trial evidence was ambiguous and presented only an
expert dispute over police tactics fails to appreciate that the court assessed
the credibility of each witness and made factual findings sufficient to
support its verdict. The State is correct, as we next explain.

A. Sufficient Evidence Supported the Court’s Conclusion That
the State Disproved Carroll’s General Self-Defense
Justification.

¶23 Carroll first argues a general self-defense justification. Under
it, a “person is justified in using physical force against another, and does
not commit a crime, ‘when and to the extent a reasonable person would
believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.’” State
v. Carson, 243 Ariz. 463, 465 ¶ 9 (2018) (quoting A.R.S. § 13-404(A)).

¶24 Carroll argues he established his objective reasonableness by
testifying “to the danger he felt during his altercation with [Sparks],” and
to his belief that Sparks “was impaired, non-compliant, attempting to flee,
and actively assaulting” him. He further asserts that “the State needed to
show not just that another tactic was possible, but that” his “conduct was
unreasonable beyond a reasonable doubt.”

¶25 Carroll’s arguments fall short of establishing that the State
failed to “present[] evidence that ‘reasonable persons could accept as
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.’” Duncan, 257 Ariz. at 368 ¶ 10 (quoting Spears, 184 Ariz.
at 290). The court received the evidence Carroll says should prompt us to
reverse, but was unpersuaded by it. The court concluded instead that “the
force used was greater than reasonably necessary to defend against the
7
STATE v. CARROLL
Decision of the Court

danger.” And though Carroll says the jury’s inability to reach a unanimous
verdict shows there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, the
evidence is sufficient for us to affirm even if “jurors could reasonably differ
as to whether the evidence establishes the necessary facts.” Duncan, 257
Ariz. at 368 ¶ 10. We cannot “reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’
credibility,” id. (quoting State v. Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. 334, 334 ¶ 38
(App. 2013)), so we cannot simply decide for ourselves that the court should
have credited Carroll’s and his expert’s testimonies, as he argues.

¶26 Instead, the law requires us to ask whether “there is more
than a scintilla of proof” upon which the court could have reached its
conclusion. West, 173 Ariz. at 610. There is. As the court found, Carroll
used force that was greater than reasonably necessary to defend himself by
administering “prolonged strikes to [Sparks’] head that continued long
after [Sparks] had been subdued and culminated with Carroll throwing the
fully handcuffed and injured victim to the pavement.” This record
provides far “more than a scintilla of proof” to support that finding. See id.
As such, we cannot say insufficient evidence supported the court’s
conclusion that Carroll’s actions were not justified as general self-defense.

B. Sufficient Evidence Supports the Court’s Conclusion That
the Law Enforcement Self-Defense Justification in A.R.S. §
13-409 Does Not Aid Carroll.

¶27 Carroll also asserted a self-defense justification specifically
available to law enforcement officers under A.R.S. § 13-409. For that
defense to apply, all three of the following conditions must exist: (1) “[a]
reasonable person would believe that such force is immediately necessary
to effect the arrest or detention or prevent the escape[;] (2) [s]uch person
makes known the purpose of the arrest or detention or believes that it is
otherwise known or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be
arrested or detained[; and] (3) [a] reasonable person would believe the
arrest or detention to be lawful.” A.R.S. § 13-409.

¶28 As an initial matter, there was sufficient evidence to support
the superior court’s conclusion that “the State has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the use of physical force here was unnecessary.” As
the court noted, less than 30 seconds after Carroll told Sparks to stay in the
car — a command Sparks obeyed — Carroll chose not to wait for backup
and escalated the situation by opening the door to Sparks’ car and then
initiating contact by reaching in and attempting to remove the compliant
Sparks from the vehicle. The record supports the court’s finding that
Carroll’s use of force was not immediately necessary to effect his arrest or

8
STATE v. CARROLL
Decision of the Court

detention of Sparks because “[i]n the lead-up to the assault and eventual
detention of [Sparks], Carroll issued increasingly confusing commands that
needlessly exacerbated the situation.”

¶29 Despite those proofs, Carroll asks us to find he acted
reasonably under the circumstances, citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386
(1989) and Marquez v. City of Phoenix, 693 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2012). But those
cases concerned constitutional challenges to officers’ use of force. Graham
instructs that they “are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s
‘objective reasonableness’ standard,” Graham, 490 U.S. at 386, and Marquez
explains the relevance of competing expert testimony when assessing
officers’ particular use of force as part of the balancing required by Graham.
693 F.3d at 1174. Here, Carroll was not alleged to have violated Sparks’
Fourth Amendment rights. Rather, he stood accused of aggravated assault
and sought to rely on a statutory justification defense, which the State was
required to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. Because sufficient
evidence supports the court’s conclusion that Carroll failed to prove the
first element of law enforcement self-defense under A.R.S. § 13-409 beyond
a reasonable doubt, Carroll’s appeal on this issue fails. West, 173 Ariz. at
610. The federal authorities he cites concerning different issues not present
here are not applicable nor are they to the contrary.

CONCLUSION

¶30 We affirm. Carroll did not file a separate request for oral
argument, as ARCAP 18(a) requires. Because oral argument would not
have aided our resolution of this appeal, we did not set argument in
reaction to the informal request on Carroll’s brief’s caption page.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

9