State v. Manseau

── State v. Manseau ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 17, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. BRADLEY JAMES MANSEAU, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0026 FILED 04-17-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. S8015CR202400095 The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Rebecca Jones Counsel for Appellee Carr Law Office, PLLC, Kingman By Sandra Carr Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. MANSEAU Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 Bradley James Manseau appeals his conviction and sentences for three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of attempted sexual conduct with a minor. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Manseau's daughter Emmy (a pseudonym) accused him of sexually abusing her between the ages of four and eleven. Manseau did not always live with Emmy and served time in jail between April 2018 and October 2020. In 2024, the State indicted Manseau on three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of attempted sexual conduct with a minor. The State alleged the crimes occurred between 2015 and 2021. ¶3 Trial was delayed twice. First, the State requested a continuance because a key witness, the investigating detective, was not available on the original trial dates. The State moved to continue but was also willing to accelerate trial. Manseau objected to a continuance, but Manseau's counsel was unavailable for an earlier date and expressed a preference for a later date. The court granted the continuance and delayed trial by two weeks. ¶4 The second delay occurred when the State interviewed Emmy the day before trial. Immediately following the interview, the State disclosed that she had made new abuse allegations against Manseau. The State also disclosed that another alleged Manseau victim, herself a potential Arizona Rule of Evidence ("Rule") 404(c) witness in this case, had recently made unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse against a third party not involved in this case (her stepfather). Manseau moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, alleging the State violated its Brady obligation by intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence, putting him in the untenable position of choosing between a speedy trial or effective assistance of counsel. The superior court denied the motion, instead granting the State's request to preclude evidence of the new allegations. The court also 2  STATE v. MANSEAU Decision of the Court offered to preclude the Rule 404(c) witness altogether, but Manseau disagreed because he wanted to explore using that witness's testimony to impeach Emmy. Ultimately, Manseau requested a continuance. ¶5 At trial, Emmy, then thirteen, testified to the specifics of the abuse, but had trouble remembering specific dates and prior statements. For example, she testified Manseau had attempted to abuse her in a car in 2022, even though she previously claimed it occurred in 2020. Investigating detectives also testified on a variety of topics, including discovery of recent Goo