Phoenix Appeals Court Upholds Sexual Assault Conviction Despite Objections to Police Interview
If you’re facing serious felony charges in Phoenix and think certain statements made during a police interview might have tainted your trial, a recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision shows how difficult it is to overturn a conviction on those grounds. In State v. Narayan, decided in April 2025, the court upheld a sexual assault conviction despite arguments that a detective’s recorded statements improperly influenced the jury.
Police Interview Featured Strong Statements from Detective
The case began when the victim reported that her ex-boyfriend sexually assaulted her and recorded it without her permission. She underwent a forensic exam the same day. During the investigation, officers arrested the defendant and recorded a three-hour interview between him and the lead detective. In that interview, the detective directly questioned him about visible injuries, such as a human bite mark, scratches on his face, and a broken necklace. The detective repeatedly pointed out that the victim’s account matched those physical signs. At trial, the defendant admitted he had lied about the origin of his injuries, initially blaming his dog.
Statements at the Center of the Appeal
On appeal, the defense focused on specific quotes from the detective’s interview. The detective made several emotionally charged comments, including:
“She’s had a very invasive, very personal medical exam. That’s traumatizing in and of itself.”
“I don’t have any doubt in my mind that something happened.”
“There’s just so much that’s adding up.”
“You have a human bite mark… She said she bit you to try and get away.”
Statements like these formed the basis of the defendant’s claim that the detective had improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility. Under Arizona law, vouching occurs when the government suggests that a witness is believable based on information not presented to the jury or when it places the weight of the government behind a witness’s testimony.
Court Found No Prosecutorial Misconduct
The appellate court rejected the claim. It found that although the detective did express personal beliefs and drew conclusions about the evidence, those remarks did not amount to prosecutorial vouching. Arizona courts have consistently ruled that a police officer’s personal opinion during an interview does not carry the same weight as a prosecutor’s statements in court.
Importantly, the defense had not objected to the video interview during the trial. Because of that, the appellate court reviewed the issue under a higher standard. Unless an error affects the trial’s outcome or causes fundamental unfairness, it will not lead to reversal. Here, the court decided that none of the detective’s remarks met that threshold.
Arizona Sentencing Law Allows Courts to Consider Lies Told by the Accused
In the Narayan case, the accused argued that the judge wrongly used his dishonesty to increase the severity of his sentence. Arizona courts have the authority to consider several factors at sentencing, including whether the accused accepted responsibility or attempted to mislead investigators or the court. The record showed that he admitted under oath to lying during the police interview. He had falsely claimed his dog caused visible injuries that the victim described as part of the assault.
The Court of Appeals determined that the judge acted within the boundaries of the law. Arizona law does not prevent judges from considering whether someone has been truthful throughout the legal process. When you testify, and your story conflicts with earlier statements, that inconsistency may be factored into sentencing.
Recorded Interviews and False Claims Can Affect Your Criminal Trial
If police question you after an arrest, anything you say can be used at trial. Video recordings often include more than just facts. Detectives may express doubt, pressure you to change your story, or suggest their conclusions. The jury may see and hear it all unless your attorney raises a timely objection. Courts are unlikely to exclude such statements unless they violate legal standards.
This case shows how important it is to speak carefully after an arrest. Misleading investigators may damage your credibility in front of a jury. It can also affect the sentence you receive if you are convicted. Even if you believe police statements went too far, you need an attorney who can identify objectionable content and act quickly to preserve your rights.
Telling the truth from the start or exercising your right to remain silent may protect you later. Once conflicting statements appear in the record, they are hard to explain away.
Call the Law Office of James Novak for Criminal Defense Support in Phoenix
If you are accused of a sex crime in Phoenix or anywhere in Maricopa County, your best defense starts with early legal intervention. The Law Office of James Novak provides skilled criminal defense for those facing serious charges. Whether you are being investigated, preparing for trial, or considering an appeal, we are ready to fight for your future. Call (480) 413-1499 today to set up a confidential consultation.
