State v. Serrano

── State v. Serrano ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 25-0171 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 19, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. ELIAS M. SERRANO, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0171 FILED 03-19-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2021-001472-001 The Honorable Todd F. Lang, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Deborah Celeste Kinney Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Joshua Messick Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. SERRANO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge D. Steven Williams joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Elias M. Serrano appeals from his convictions and sentences on the ground that an evidentiary hearing on his motion for a new trial was constitutionally inadequate. We detect no constitutional infirmity and no abuse of discretion in the superior court’s denial of the new-trial motion. We therefore affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Serrano was tried for multiple sexual offenses against a minor. On each day of the trial, the juror ultimately selected as the foreperson videoed herself discussing the case. She then published the videos on TikTok after the jury returned guilty verdicts and was discharged. ¶3 Serrano timely moved for a new trial based on a portion of the recordings made after the jury, having been authorized to begin deliberations late on a Thursday, decided not to start until the next Monday. In the video, the foreperson stated: All right, I got nominated to foreperson because I said I wanted to do it, and I feel like it’s going to fucking bite me in the ass now because I can tell that I am not on the same page with a few of the jurors. So we will be back Monday morning to deliberate and see if we can come up with a verdict. And I can already tell I’m going to butt heads with some people. So we shall see, but I will be back on Monday morning. Her speech was overlaid with typed words stating: “i know my verdict, i could’ve given it within the 15 mins remaining, i know some other jurors felt the same.” ¶4 The State argued that the foreperson’s statements referred to permitted discussions. In response, Serrano acknowledged that the State’s interpretation of the foreperson’s statements was “a reasonable 2  STATE v. SERRANO Decision of the Court assumption,” but insisted that “[w]e don’t know precisely when they started discussing the case” because “none of us were there.” Serrano asked the court to call “all of the deliberating jurors here for testimony” because that would be “the safe approach.” When the court asked whether it would “be easier just to bring in the Foreperson,” Serrano agreed that “we could, certainly[,] . . . [b]ut . . . it’s safer for us just to have all of them.” The court ordered an evidentiary hearing with the foreperson only. ¶5 At the evidentiary hearing, the foreperson testified that her statements in the relevant video (which was played at the hearing and, along with her other videos, admitted into evidence) described the jurors’ disagreement about whether to begin deliberating that day, or adjourn and re