State v. Kisemh

── State v. Kisemh ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 16, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. GLENDA LEE KISEMH, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0290 FILED 04-16-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. CR-2024-00876 The Honorable Billy K. Sipe Jr., Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph A. Newberg, II Counsel for Appellee Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler By Janelle A. McEachern Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. KISEMH Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 A jury found Glenda L. Kisemh guilty of aggravated driving, while impaired to the slightest degree (with a suspended license) and driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.20 or more (with a suspended license). Kisemh argues the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence that Kisemh was driving a vehicle. Because a reasonable person could accept the evidence as showing beyond a reasonable doubt that Kisemh drove the vehicle, this Court affirms. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 This Court views and recalls the following facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict. See State v. Nelson, 214 Ariz. 196, 196 ¶ 2 (App. 2007). On August 5, 2023, Kisemh and her daughter (“Daughter”) were staying in a rental property in Kingman, Arizona. Kisemh’s niece (“Niece”) spent the day with them. That night, Daughter and Niece argued with Kisemh about Kisemh’s drinking. Kisemh left the property and Daughter followed her. Kisemh got into the family’s truck and backed into a stationary service truck across the street. ¶3 The police were called to respond to the vehicle collision. When they arrived at the scene, Daughter told them that Kisemh had run off. The police interviewed Daughter and Niece, along with Kisemh’s sister (“Sister”), who arrived after the collision. ¶4 Daughter told the police that: (1) Kisemh was drinking, (2) she saw Kisemh back up the truck and ram into a vehicle parked across the street, (3) Daughter had to climb through the back window of the truck because Kisemh had locked the doors, (4) Daughter tried to stop Kisemh from driving the truck, and (5) Kisemh bit and hit her, and pulled her hair while still driving the truck down the street. ¶5 Kisemh was later found hiding next to a nearby bush in an undeveloped area. She was not wearing shoes, gave a fake name, and 2  STATE v. KISEMH Decision of the Court appeared drunk. She had difficulty standing, smelled like alcohol, and cursed at the police. Kisemh claimed she had done nothing wrong. ¶6 Kisemh was transported to a hospital. Pursuant to a warrant, her blood was drawn less than two hours after the incident. Her blood alcohol concentration at that time was 0.219. Body camera footage captured the police interactions at the incident and at the hospital. ¶7 Kisemh was indicted for one count each of aggravated driving while her license was suspended and impaired to the slightest degree and aggravated driving while her license was suspended with an alcohol concentration