Background
Souad Alfartousi and other members of her family repeatedly tracked and confronted her adult daughter, Z.A., after Z.A. left home to live with her non-Muslim partner. On August 18, 2021, family members attacked the couple outside a medical office. Alfartousi, her daughter, and one of her sons pushed and dragged the pregnant Z.A. approximately forty feet and forced her into an SUV, while another son repeatedly punched Z.A. in the stomach. Z.A. escaped and was treated for bruises at a hospital.
The State charged Alfartousi with kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and two counts of stalking. Following a joint trial, the jury acquitted her of aggravated robbery and stalking and found her guilty of unlawful imprisonment as a lesser-included offense of kidnapping. The superior court treated the class-six conviction as an undesignated felony, suspended sentence, and imposed three years of supervised probation with domestic-violence and mental-health conditions.
In an Anders appeal, counsel reported finding no arguable legal issue and asked the Court of Appeals to review the record for fundamental error. Alfartousi filed a supplemental brief alleging juror and judicial bias and disputing the evidence against her.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and probation. The record did not support Alfartousi’s claim that most jurors worked in law enforcement or show that any biased or prejudiced juror served. Her accusations that the superior court judge was racist, unfair, or biased likewise lacked factual support; the appellate court found that the judge acted patiently and impartially throughout the proceedings.
Substantial evidence supported unlawful imprisonment because testimony and other evidence showed that Alfartousi knowingly helped restrain Z.A. and force her into the SUV, and that Z.A. suffered physical injury during the attack. The court declined to reweigh that evidence on appeal.
The prosecutor improperly made a “Golden Rule” remark by asking jurors to put themselves in Z.A.’s shoes. But because the statement was isolated, Alfartousi did not object, and the verdicts showed that the jury evaluated the charges individually rather than deciding from sympathy, the remark did not amount to fundamental, reversible error. The court’s independent review revealed no other reversible error.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence that Alfartousi helped drag and force Z.A. into an SUV, during an attack that caused physical injury, was sufficient to support unlawful imprisonment.
- Unsupported accusations of juror or judicial bias did not overcome the record or the presumption of judicial impartiality.
- The prosecutor’s isolated invitation for jurors to place themselves in the victim’s position was improper but did not require reversal under fundamental-error review.
Why It Matters
The memorandum decision illustrates the demanding burden on an appellant who raises unpreserved claims of bias or prosecutorial misconduct. An improper emotional appeal during closing argument does not automatically warrant reversal; the court examines its context, whether prejudice was shown, and whether the verdict indicates that jurors assessed the evidence charge by charge.
The decision also confirms that appellate sufficiency review asks whether substantial evidence supports the statutory elements, not whether the appellate court would weigh the evidence differently. Because the decision is designated “not for official publication,” it is nonprecedential and may be cited only as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).