## Facts

- Jorge Carlos Centeno-Sarabia was charged in Maricopa County Superior Court with one count of sexual abuse and two counts of sexual conduct with a minor based on allegations involving a 13-year-old neighbor.
- The victim reported that Centeno-Sarabia touched her breasts and penetrated her vagina digitally and with his penis.
- After the victim told a neighborhood boy she had “a story,” the boy took her to his apartment and told his mother, N.H., who contacted police.
- The State presented the victim’s testimony describing the alleged acts and additional evidence consistent with the report, including physical/DNA-related evidence introduced to corroborate the allegations.
- The prosecution called Officer Gary Hodgekiss, who responded to the 911 call and also had known the victim for about three years from prior contacts.
- Over Centeno-Sarabia’s objection, Officer Hodgekiss testified about the victim’s developmental delays and offered opinions that she had “no imagination” and was “absolutely not capable of fabricating a story.”
- The defense denied the accusations and challenged the reliability of the allegations, including by suggesting an alternative perpetrator theory and attacking the State’s proof.
- A jury convicted Centeno-Sarabia on all counts, and the trial court imposed presumptive consecutive prison terms totaling 75 years.
- On direct appeal, appointed counsel filed an Anders brief stating no non-frivolous issue existed; Centeno-Sarabia filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional complaints about the trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Officer Hodgekiss’s testimony that the victim was incapable of making up the allegations was improper opinion/vouching and, if so, whether it required reversal on the court’s Anders review.
2. Whether the record contained sufficient evidence and otherwise revealed reversible error in the convictions or sentences.
3. Whether any claims raised in Centeno-Sarabia’s pro se supplemental brief showed fundamental, prejudicial error.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals (Division One) affirmed Centeno-Sarabia’s convictions and sentences in a non-precedential memorandum decision.
- Conducting the required Anders review of the entire record, the court found no reversible error.
- The court addressed the challenged testimony from Officer Hodgekiss and recognized that statements effectively telling the jury a victim is truthful or cannot fabricate are improper because they intrude on the jury’s role.
- Even assuming error in admitting the officer’s “not capable of fabricating” opinions, the court concluded the record did not warrant reversal given the trial as a whole, including the victim’s account, corroborating evidence, and the jury instructions placing credibility determinations with the jury.
- The court found the evidence was adequate to support each conviction because the victim’s testimony, if believed, established the elements of sexual abuse and sexual conduct with a minor, and the jury was entitled to accept it.
- The court rejected the remaining pro se arguments as failing to show reversible (or fundamental and prejudicial) error.
- A separate writing by Judge Brown agreed in part but would have granted relief at least in part due to the admission of the officer’s credibility opinions; the judgment nonetheless remained an affirmance.

## Legal Principles

- In an Anders appeal, when counsel identifies no arguable issue, the appellate court independently reviews the entire record for reversible error.
- Credibility determinations belong to the jury; a witness generally may not opine that another witness is telling the truth or is incapable of lying or fabricating allegations.
- When an objection is not properly preserved or when the court reviews for fundamental error in this setting, the defendant must show error and resulting prejudice warranting relief.
- A conviction will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence; an appellate court does not reweigh evidence or second-guess credibility findings.
- A victim’s testimony can be sufficient to sustain sexual-offense convictions if the jury finds it credible, even when the defense disputes the account.

## Conclusion

State v. Centeno-Sarabia affirmed convictions and lengthy consecutive sentences after the court’s independent Anders review found no reversible error; although a responding officer’s statements that the developmentally delayed victim had “no imagination” and was “absolutely not capable of fabricating a story” amounted to improper credibility opinion, the court concluded the overall record did not justify reversal.


State v. Centeno-Sarabia, 2014 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1488 (2014)