State v. Wright

── State v. Wright ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 14, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JOHN FRANKLIN WRIGHT, III, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0073 FILED 05-14-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2023-128285-001 The Honorable Suzanne Marie Nicholls, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Eric Knobloch Counsel for Appellee Bain & Lauritano PLC, Glendale By Sheri M. Lauritano Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. WRIGHT Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. C A T L E T T, Judge: ¶1 John Franklin Wright III (“Wright”) appeals his convictions on four counts of sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of furnishing obscene or harmful items to a minor, and one count of child molestation. Because the court did not err, we affirm his convictions. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wright is related to A.C. by marriage. In 2023, when A.C. was nine years old, a witness (“9-1-1 Caller”) summoned police to a parking lot where Wright and A.C. were in his car because she saw “a man . . . and a little girl . . . doing inappropriate things; she is going down on him” and because Wright was “licking his fingers and touching her.” (“the Parking Lot Incident”). The 9-1-1 Caller told the operator she would not further cooperate with the investigation because she was traumatized. ¶3 Police transported Wright to the police station where they interviewed him and collected DNA from his person, including his genitals. During the interview, he admitted having sexual contact with A.C. ¶4 A.C. underwent a forensic interview and a sexual assault nursing exam (“SANE exam”). Several days later, A.C. underwent a second forensic interview. During those interviews, A.C. disclosed additional incidents of sexual contact with Wright. ¶5 The State charged Wright based on the Parking Lot Incident and prior incidents of abuse that A.C. disclosed during the interviews. I. Trial ¶6 At trial, A.C. testified about the Parking Lot Incident, including that Wright showed her a pornographic video on his phone and details about Wright’s sexual conduct. She also testified about her two forensic interviews and SANE exam. And she testified about other 2  STATE v. WRIGHT Decision of the Court incidents of sexual abuse Wright committed before the Parking Lot Incident. ¶7 The 9-1-1 Caller was unavailable to testify despite police efforts to locate her, but another witness present during the Parking Lot Incident testified. She said the 9-1-1 Caller flagged her down to ask that she block Wright’s car with her truck to prevent him from leaving. She also said, upon stopping her truck, she saw Wright lift A.C. from his seat into the back seat of his car, but that she saw nothing beforehand. ¶8 A DNA analyst testified that a DNA profile consistent with Wright’s was present on a swab taken from A.C.’s genitals. Due to the overwhelming presence of A.C.’s DNA on the swab, the analyst could only say, based on chromosomal haplotype, that the male DNA on the swab came from Wright or another male in his pater