2025 DVFRT annual report DRAFT.pdf

1 | P a g e
Title Page 
CITY OF PHOENIX 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FATALITY REVIEW TEAM 
2025 REPORT 
Attachment A

2 | P a g e 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Page Number 
Table of Contents 
2 
Letter from the Chairs 
3 
Mission and Introduction 
4 
2025 DVFRT Members and Staff 
5 
Domestic Violence Information and Statistics 
7 
Phoenix Police Department Domestic Violence 
Statistics 
8 
Statistical References 
11 
2025 DVFRT Case Selection Process 
13 
2025 Case Timeline & Summary 
14 
2025 Case Findings and Recommendations 
22 
2023/24 Report Recommendations Update 
25 
Attachment A 
29

3 | P a g e 
 
 
 
Letter from the chairs 
To the Phoenix Community: 
Domestic violence is a critical public safety issue that endangers not only victims, but 
also their friends, families, co-workers, law enforcement, and the broader community. 
Its far-reaching impact requires a coordinated response from multiple agencies, creating 
complex systemic implications.   
The Phoenix DVFRT is committed to identifying systemic gaps and recommending 
improvements to reduce domestic violence-related homicides. In 2025, the team 
continued its vital work, leveraging its collective expertise to enhance domestic violence 
awareness and response strategies. We are grateful for the hard work of the review 
team members, the assistance from the staff liaisons, and the support from the City of 
Phoenix executive team members. 
As first-time committee members and Co-Chairs of the DVFRT, we are honored 
to present the 2025 Phoenix Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team Annual 
Report. Our intent is that this report provides valuable insights to strengthen 
domestic violence prevention efforts and improve system-wide responses.   
Sincerely, 
Tracee Hall 
 
 
      Steve Martos 
Tracee Hall, Assistant Director  
Steve Martos, Commander 
City of Phoenix 
 
 
 
Phoenix Police Department 
Human Services Department 
 
Family Investigations Bureau

4 | P a g e 
 
MISSION AND INTRODUCTION 
 In alignment with Arizona Revised Statute § 41-198, the City of Phoenix assembled a Domestic 
Violence Fatality Review Team (DVFRT). DVFRT members offer diverse experience from multiple 
perspectives including: the criminal justice system, advocacy community, healthcare, municipal 
government, and other community-based agencies. This wide-ranging membership provides a 
unique opportunity to work with many disciplines to evaluate systemic issues and to develop 
comprehensive and practical recommendations for improvement.  
The mission and purpose of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team is to examine domestic 
violence fatality and near-fatality incidents in order to improve our understanding of the 
dynamics of such incidents and provide concrete recommendations to improve system 
responses to domestic violence. Following a comprehensive review of the selected incident, the 
members apply their knowledge and expertise in their various disciplines to develop 
recommendations for systems improvements to better serve victims and survivors of domestic 
violence. The team’s goal is to have a positive impact and influence in preventing future 
domestic violence incidents and fatalities from occurring.  
2025 DVFRT Process: 
The Phoenix Police Department researched incidents of domestic violence homicides and near-
fatal incidents for the DVFRT to review and select from. The DVFRT members collectively 
selected the case for the 2025 report. The case review, report recommendations, and report 
drafting were completed by DVFRT subcommittees.  
The 2025 DVFRT selected a homicide case that deviates from the types of cases previously 
examined. In this case, the woman’s estranged husband engaged in geo-tracking and stalking to 
locate her and murder her new partner.

5 | P a g e 
 
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FATALITY REVIEW TEAM 
2025 DVFRT Members 
Tracee Hall (Co-Chair), City of Phoenix Human Services Department  
Steve Martos (Co-Chair), City of Phoenix Police Department  
Michelle De Alba, City of Phoenix Human Services Department  
Kelli Donley Williams, Maricopa County Department of Public Health  
Dolores (D.C.) Ernst, Phoenix Fire Department  
Karen Gerdes, La Frontera Empact  
Laura Guild, Arizona Department of Economic Security  
Susan Hallett, City of Phoenix Human Services Department 
Bianca Harper, Arizona State University  
James Hester, City of Phoenix Police Department  
Nicholas Jimenez, City of Phoenix Police Department  
Shannon Johanni, City of Phoenix Office of Accountability and Transparency  
Kate Loudenslagel, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office  
Dana Martinez, A New Leaf  
Samantha Mendez, HonorHealth  
Katelyn Osselaer, City of Phoenix Human Services Department  
Stephanie Smith, Phoenix Fire Department 
Shawn Steinberg, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office  
Christopher Sund, City of Phoenix Police Department 
Hilary Weinberg, City of Phoenix Prosecutor’s Office 
Krista Wood, Arizona Attorney General’s Office

6 | P a g e 
 
2025 DVFRT Staff Liaisons 
Kristina Blea, City of Phoenix Human Services Department  
Luke Christian, City of Phoenix Law Department  
Priscilla Lopez, City of Phoenix Human Services Department 
 
City of Phoenix Executive Team 
Ed Zuercher, City Manager 
Ginger Spencer, Assistant City Manager 
Gina Montes, Deputy City Manager 
Jacqueline Edwards, Human Services Director  
Matt Giordano, Police Chief

7 | P a g e 
 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INFORMATION AND STATISTICS 
Domestic violence (DV) remains a critical public health concern with profound social, physical, 
and psychological consequences. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, domestic violence 
is defined as a “pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain 
or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.” (14) Domestic violence can be 
physical, sexual, emotional, economic, psychological, or technological actions or threats of 
actions or other patterns of coercive behavior that influence another person within an intimate 
partner relationship. (1)  
No one is immune to domestic violence. It affects people of all ages, ethnicities, genders, and 
socioeconomic statuses. In the United States, about 41% of women and 26% of men have 
experienced some form of intimate partner violence (IPV) (2024). (2) In addition, research from 
the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) shows that nearly 10 million 
adults experience domestic violence annually, in the United States (2017). (3) Factors that may 
cause or contribute to domestic violence are complex and often compounding. Parental 
substance abuse, family conflict or violence, history of child abuse and neglect, exposure to stress, 
undiagnosed mental health problems, poverty, peer rejection and low-self-esteem can increase 
the likelihood of someone perpetrating violence (2024). (4) 
According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, stalking is a significant component 
of domestic violence, and its prevalence is a growing concern, particularly with the rise of 
technology (2024). (5) Technology facilitated abuse (TFA) has been a growing trend in society 
(2022). (8) According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, TFA, also known as 
digital dating abuse, “encompasses a range of behaviors and is facilitated in online spaces” (2022). 
(8) Some examples of TFA include the use of surveillance apps, spyware, social media platforms, 
endless texting, and smart home technology (2022). (8)  
Research from the NISVS found that nearly, “1 in 3 woman and about 1 in 6 men in the United 
States reported being stalked at some point during their lives, and that 43.4% of female victims 
and 32.4% of male victims were stalked by a current or former intimate partner” (2024). (6)  
Cyber stalking, a form of TFA, is unwanted online behavior where an individual or group uses a 
social platform to “harass, threaten, or intimidate another person” (12). Cyber stalking has a 
correlation to intimate partner violence (IPV) because it has opened new avenues for abusers to 
exert control and power. Tactics like threatening to share explicit images, videos, and private 
information increase victims’ overall safety risks (12).  
A Bureau of Justice Statistics report summarized data collected from the Supplemental 
Victimization Survey to the National Crime Victimization Survey which estimated that among the, 
“3.4 million U.S. persons ages 16 and older who reported experiencing stalking in 2019, 80%

8 | P a g e 
 
indicated that the use of technology was involved. Among this group, 14% reported they had their 
whereabouts tracked with an electronic device” (2022). (7)  
 
PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE STATISTICS 
Based on the 2024 City of Phoenix Police Department’s (PD) Domestic Violence Statistical Report, 
PD’s domestic violence calls for service totaled 33,408 and domestic violence incident reports  
totaled 23,889. (9) From those calls and incident reports, there were 8,568 adult arrests involving 
domestic violence and 421 juvenile contacts involving domestic violence (2024). (9) Of those 
arrests, 263 involved aggravated domestic violence, and 19 involved domestic violence homicides 
(2024). (9) Under Arizona law, “a person commits aggravated domestic violence if, within an 84-
month (seven-year) period, they commit a third or subsequent domestic violence offense, or if 
they are convicted of a domestic violence offense and have two or more prior convictions for 
domestic violence offenses or equivalent acts that would qualify as domestic violence if 
committed in Arizona. This offense is classified as a Class 5 felony under A.R.S. § 13-3601.02.” (13) 
Stalking coupled with coercive control and a predictable sequence of events can eventually lead 
to domestic violence homicides (2018). (11) Per the 2024 Phoenix Police Department Domestic 
Violence Statistical Report, 35 cases were classified as stalking under the domestic violence crime 
types. (9) 
In 2024, assaults were documented as the highest form of reported domestic violence incidents 
to Phoenix Police. The summary report is provided in attachment A. (9) The following charts 
represent information from the 2024 Phoenix Police summary report.

9 | P a g e 
 
 
 
 
In the city of Phoenix, the most common relationship between abuser and 
victim in 2024 was among unmarried persons. 
 
The most used “weapon” during a domestic violence incident in the city of 
Phoenix was “physical force”.  Defined as the use of hands, fists, or feet, to 
assault the victim.  Strangulation is included in this category.

10 | P a g e 
 
 
 
When a substance was involved in a domestic violence situation, the highest 
used substance was alcohol.

11 | P a g e 
 
 References 
 (1) U.S. Department of Justice: Office on Violence Against Woman (OVW)  
Website: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence 
  
(2) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: About Intimate Partner Violence  
Website:https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-
violence/about/index.html#:~:text=IPV%20is%20common.,killed%20by%20an%20intimate%20p
artner. 
  
(3) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence 
Survey  
Website: https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/documentation/NISVSReportonIPV_2022.pdf 
  
(4) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Intimate Partner Violence Risk and Protective 
Factors  
Website: https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/risk-factors/index.html 
  
(5) National Network to End Domestic Violence: The Intersections of Stalking and Domestic 
Violence   
Website:https://nnedv.org/latest_update/intersections-of-stalking-and-domestic-
violence/#:~:text=At%20the%20same%20time%2C%20we,behaviors%20are%20often%20the%2
0same. 
 
 (6) The Intersections of Stalking and Domestic Violence  
Website: The Intersections of Stalking and Domestic Violence - NNEDV  
 
(7) Stalking Concerns Raised by Bluetooth Tracking Technologies 
Website: Stalking Concerns Raised by Bluetooth Tracking Technologies: In Brief | Congress.gov | 
Library of Congress

12 | P a g e 
 
(8) Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Intimate Relationships: A Scoping Review  
Website: Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Intimate Relationships: A Scoping Review - PMC 
  
(9) Phoenix Police Department: Crime Analysis and Research Unit  
Phoenix Domestic Violence Statistics (attachment A) 
 
(10) WomansLaw.org: Selected Statues of Arizona  
Website:https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/az/statutes/ss-13-1204-aggravated-assault-
classification-definition 
 
(11) Stalking and Intimate Partner Violence Fact Sheet  
Website: 
https://www.stalkingawareness.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Stalking-IPV-Fact-
Sheet.pdf 
 
(12) The chilling connection- cyber stalking and intimate partner violence  
https://www.hcdvcc.org/chilling-connection/ 
 
(13) Arizona Legislature 
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03601-02  
 
(14) United States Department of Justice 
Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) | Domestic Violence

13 | P a g e 
 
THE PHOENIX DVFRT PROCESS 
Case Selection and Review: 
Members of the Phoenix Police Department reviewed four fatal and near-fatal domestic violence 
incidents with the DVFRT. After a thorough discussion, the DVFRT reached a consensus and 
selected the case detailed below for the 2025 fatality review.  
The selected case involved a shooting incident where the husband stalked and used geo-location 
information to locate his estranged wife who was in a new heterosexual intimate partner 
relationship. The husband ultimately killed the new partner. After the case was selected by the 
DVFRT, a subset of members volunteered for the Case Review Subcommittee.  
In preparation for the review, Phoenix Police DVFRT members collected police reports, criminal 
histories, charging documents, body-worn camera footage, and court records, and provided these 
items to the subcommittee. Subcommittee members interviewed the incarcerated perpetrator 
virtually. The subcommittee members were unable to successfully contact other involved parties, 
including the estranged wife/domestic violence victim.  
The Case Review Subcommittee reviewed all collected information and created a timeline that 
includes police involvement, details of the domestic violence victim and perpetrator’s 
relationship, the history of violence in this relationship leading up to the homicide of the domestic 
violence victim’s new partner (hereinafter, “homicide victim”), and through the perpetrator’s 
conviction.

14 | P a g e 
 
CASE SUMMARY TIMELINE 
DATE 
EVENT 
1980 
Homicide victim born. 
1983 
Perpetrator born. 
1987 
Domestic violence victim born. 
 
 
 
 
 
2001-2007 
Perpetrator joined the military and served active duty. No relevant or 
major discipline during this service.  
2001- Military referred Perpetrator to Alcohol Drug Abuse Treatment. 
2004- Perpetrator deployed at an unknown location. 
2006- Perpetrator and domestic violence victim met during Perpetrator’s 
deployment out of the country.  They married approximately one year 
later.  
2008- Perpetrator transitioned to the Reserves. 
2008- Military referred Perpetrator for a second time to Alcohol Drug 
Abuse Treatment. 
2009- Perpetrator and domestic violence victim’s first child born. 
2010- Perpetrator transferred to a military law enforcement position. 
2012  
Perpetrator and domestic violence victim’s second child born. 
2014 
Perpetrator and domestic violence victim’s third child born. 
2016 
Perpetrator suspected domestic violence victim of cheating. The incident 
prompted the couple to seek marital counseling, but the perpetrator felt 
the counselor would take the domestic victim’s side because she was a 
female also. This made the perpetrator upset and he walked out of the 
counseling session. The couple later tried counseling services through the 
military, but there were no therapists available who spoke the primary 
language of the domestic violence victim.  
2019 
Perpetrator was deployed to overseas for six months. Perpetrator 
suspected domestic violence victim of cheating due to monitoring of cell 
phone history. 
2020  
Military referred Perpetrator to Alcohol Drug Abuse Treatment for a third 
time. 
2020  
Perpetrator suspected domestic violence victim of lying about her 
whereabouts through cell phone and geo-location data monitoring.

15 | P a g e 
 
Fall 2021 
Domestic violence victim and homicide victim started dating. A few 
months later, perpetrator began looking through domestic violence 
victim’s call logs, determined she was communicating with homicide 
victim, and looked up information on homicide victim. Perpetrator was 
angry about her new relationship and forbade her from continuing to 
contact homicide victim. Domestic violence victim agreed to this to avoid 
conflict. She continued to see homicide victim.  
December 2021 
Perpetrator and domestic violence victim separated and contemplated 
divorce. Perpetrator and domestic violence victim continued to live in the 
same house.  
February or 
March 2022 
Perpetrator confronted domestic violence victim about her relationship 
with homicide victim. Domestic violence victim said she would stop seeing 
the homicide victim.  
May 2022 
Perpetrator messaged domestic violence victim and told her he knew 
where she was, knew she had been with homicide victim and that she was 
at his house. Domestic violence victim searched her vehicle for a tracker 
and didn’t find anything. Perpetrator sent her an old photo of herself in 
sexually suggestive clothing and indicated he was going to post it and 
other photos and videos of her to social media to embarrass and shame 
her. Domestic violence victim called the perpetrator and told him that if 
he escalated the situation, she would contact the police and obtain an 
order of protection. Perpetrator hung up on her, and they did not have 
contact for the rest of the week. Domestic violence victim stayed away 
from the home until late in the evening. When she arrived home, their 
children told her that Perpetrator had taken his belongings and moved 
out to stay with his mother. Perpetrator took his handgun.  
May 2022 
Incident date:  
1:00 p.m. – Perpetrator picked up two of his children from the home. 
Domestic violence victim saw him. Perpetrator dropped the children off at 
his mother’s house. Domestic violence victim went to homicide victim's 
home. 
3:46 p.m. – Perpetrator called domestic violence victim’s phone, but she 
did not answer. Approximately 1-2 minutes later, perpetrator opened the 
bedroom door at the homicide victim’s home. Perpetrator shot and killed 
homicide victim inside his home. Domestic violence victim was present

16 | P a g e 
 
and witnessed this. Domestic violence victim reported that perpetrator 
pointed the gun at her and said, “I told you!” Domestic violence victim 
feared for her life, fled the bedroom and locked herself in the bathroom.  
3:49 p.m. – Domestic violence victim called 911.  
3:52 p.m. – Emergency call of a shooting.  
Approximately 3:45 to 3:50 p.m. – Perpetrator called his mother. Before 
this call, perpetrator’s mother was contacted by an officer asking if she 
knew of perpetrator whereabouts. Perpetrator’s mother informed officer 
she was taking her grandchildren to the sports complex. Perpetrator’s 
mother met him in a public location with his three children, where she 
observed him crying while hugging and kissing them.  
Approximately 4:00 p.m. – Perpetrator contacted his stepfather. 
Perpetrator’s stepfather and his stepfather’s brother met perpetrator at a 
CVS and perpetrator asked for help to turn himself in.  
6:08 p.m. – Perpetrator arrested.  
May 4, 2023 
Plea agreement-change of plea. 
June 23, 2023 
Perpetrator sentenced to 25 years for 2nd Degree Murder & Aggravated 
Assault.  
June 30, 2023  
Modification approved by the court to allow contact between domestic 
violence victim and perpetrator. Filed with court on 7/5/2023.  
June 12, 2051 
Perpetrator due to be released.

17 | P a g e 
 
About the Homicide Victim 
At the time of the incident, the homicide victim, an adult male, had an estranged wife and 
children. He was actively dating the domestic violence victim.    
 
About the Domestic Violence Victim  
The domestic violence victim was an adult at the time of the incident. She was married to the 
perpetrator, and they have three minor children in common.  She is a permanent resident in the 
United States and English is her second language. The domestic violence victim met her husband 
(the perpetrator) in her country of origin while the perpetrator was outside of the United States 
on a deployment. They married and the domestic violence victim moved to the United States. 
At some point in their relationship, the domestic violence victim and the perpetrator attempted 
to obtain counseling services but stated language barriers as an issue.   
In the fall of 2021, the domestic violence victim started dating the homicide victim. A few months 
later, the perpetrator began looking through her call logs and determined she was communicating 
with the homicide victim and looked up information about him. The perpetrator confronted the 
domestic violence victim about the relationship. 
In the beginning of 2022, the perpetrator confronted the domestic violence victim again about 
her relationship with the homicide victim. 
 
 About the Perpetrator 
The perpetrator was an adult at the time of the incident. He was married to the domestic violence 
victim, and they have three children. 
He was born and raised in the United States. The perpetrator reports having an inconsistent 
relationship with his father. He also notes his parents having an on and off again relationship 
and his father would come home drunk. The perpetrator also noted that he grew up in a home 
where he observed verbal and possibly some physical abuse.  
The perpetrator considered himself to be a ‘latchkey kid”, and he remembers not having a 
happy childhood. He stated he was bullied by his siblings, and he got into trouble as a teenager 
by, “turning on the fire alarm,” and “being destructive during a school dance.”  He reported

18 | P a g e 
 
doing drugs with his friends and he fell behind in his school credit hours. The perpetrator was 
transferred to an alternative school due to disruptive behaviors.  
The perpetrator noted that he had his first girlfriend in first grade and another girlfriend in sixth 
grade. He also said that he dated and was very popular amongst the young ladies while in high 
school. He stated there was never verbal or physical abuse in his intimate relationships.  
The perpetrator graduated from high school and then enlisted in the military. He used the GI Bill 
from the military to get his bachelor’s degree in criminal justice. He joined the military in 2001. 
He was in active service from 2001-2007 and was deployed to multiple countries.  He had no 
major discipline during his service.  
The perpetrator was 23 years old, and the domestic violence victim was 19 years old when they 
met in her home country during his deployment. He stated he was initially not looking to be in a 
serious relationship and wanted to have fun. The perpetrator and domestic violence victim were 
together for six months and they continued with a long-distance relationship when he returned 
home to the United States. They were together for one year prior to getting married. Once they 
were married, the domestic violence victim moved to the United States.  
According to the perpetrator, the relationship between perpetrator and domestic violence 
victim started off well. Although he reports feeling unsure if he “really loved” her. He perceived 
that issues began to arise when a friend told him the domestic violence victim was cheating on 
him. The perpetrator stated trust was the biggest issue for him in the relationship and he could 
not see past the infidelity by the domestic violence victim.  
In 2016, the perpetrator reported going to marital counseling with the domestic violence victim. 
According to the perpetrator, he felt that the counselor was siding with the domestic violence 
victim because she was also a female. He got upset and walked out of the session and they 
never attended again.  
When the perpetrator was deployed in 2019, he continued to have contact with the domestic 
violence victim. During that time, he also looked at her call logs. He saw calls from a restricted 
number. The perpetrator stated the domestic violence victim denied any cheating and 
everything went back to normal.  
By 2020, the domestic violence victim had a cell phone with a GPS tracker. The perpetrator 
reports that the domestic violence victim would tell him she was at a given location which was 
not accurate per the GPS tracker. The perpetrator says he wanted to remove the GPS tracker 
from their plan at one point because the domestic violence victim stated she had issues with it.

19 | P a g e 
 
In the fall of 2021, the domestic violence victim stated she was going to her friend's house. The 
perpetrator became suspicious, and he checked her call logs and noticed an unlisted number on 
the logs multiple times in the prior few months. The perpetrator said he called the number, and 
a man answered the phone. The man on the phone denied having contact with the domestic 
violence victim and then hung up. The perpetrator confronted the domestic violence victim 
when she came home. When asked about the man on the phone, she told the perpetrator he 
was just a friend.  
A few months after that incident, the perpetrator looked at the domestic violence victim’s call 
logs again while she was out of town. The perpetrator notes this is when he suspected the 
domestic violence victim was dating the homicide victim.  
The perpetrator and domestic violence victim decided to divorce in 2021 but continued to live 
together. In early 2022, the perpetrator confronted the domestic violence victim about her 
relationship with the homicide victim again.  
 
The Incident 
In May 2022, the perpetrator messaged the domestic violence victim and told her that he knew 
where she was and knew she had been with the homicide victim. He told her he knew she was at 
the homicide victim’s house. The domestic violence victim searched her vehicle for a tracker and 
could not find anything. The perpetrator then sent the domestic violence victim an old photo of 
the domestic violence victim in sexually suggestive clothing. The perpetrator indicated he was 
going to post it and other photos and videos to social media to embarrass and shame her. The 
domestic violence victim called him about this and told him that if he escalated the situation, she 
would call the police and obtain an order of protection. The perpetrator hung up on the domestic 
violence victim. The domestic violence victim stayed away from her home until late in the 
evening. When she arrived home, their children told her that the perpetrator had taken 
belongings to stay at his mother’s house. The domestic violence victim was aware he took his 
handgun.  
Five days later, the domestic violence victim went to the homicide victim’s home. She had been in 
the home for approximately 30 minutes when she received a call from the perpetrator which she 
did not answer. One to two minutes later, the perpetrator opened the homicide victim’s bedroom 
door. The perpetrator pointed the gun at the homicide victim, who was on the bed with the 
domestic violence victim and was unarmed. The domestic violence victim got out of the bed and

20 | P a g e 
 
told the perpetrator to stop. The perpetrator pushed her away and shot the homicide victim. The 
perpetrator then pointed the gun at the domestic violence victim and said, “I told you!” The 
domestic violence victim feared for her life and ran into the bathroom and closed the door. She 
called 911 and later went to the bedroom to check on the homicide victim.  
Witnesses said they heard two loud sounds, saw the perpetrator exit the bedroom, leave the 
house, and drive away. Phoenix Police responded to the homicide victim’s home. Officers located 
the homicide victim on a bed, unresponsive, and bleeding from apparent gunshot wounds. The 
homicide victim was transported to the hospital and once there, was pronounced deceased.  
Following the shooting, the perpetrator called his mother and said “I did something stupid. I did 
something bad.” The perpetrator said he would turn himself in but first wanted to meet with 
her to say goodbye. She drove the children to meet the perpetrator at a designated parking lot. 
Police contacted the mother of the perpetrator to ask if she knew where he was.. She told the 
officer that she had the perpetrator’s children, that they were fine, and she agreed to respond to 
the officers’ location.  
The perpetrator contacted his stepfather and said, “I messed up” and asked him, “You know 
[domestic violence victim] was cheating on me? I caught them and I shot him.” The perpetrator 
asked his stepfather if the stepfather’s brother could help the perpetrator turn himself in.  The 
perpetrator, the stepfather, and the stepfather’s brother met at a designated parking lot.  
Phoenix officers located the perpetrator’s vehicle in the designated parking lot. They observed the 
perpetrator talk with a subject in another vehicle. Officers followed the other vehicle to a law 
enforcement substation located in the area. Officers contacted the passenger and identified him 
as the perpetrator. The perpetrator told officers his gun was in the trunk of his car. The driver of 
the other vehicle said he was transporting the perpetrator to the substation so he could be 
arrested and interviewed. Officers located a gun in the trunk of the perpetrator’s car.   
 
Post Incident 
The domestic violence victim told police she and the perpetrator had decided to get a divorce 
about a year prior, but they were still living together in the same house. She stated, the 
perpetrator had been physically violent at times during the first 12 years of their 14-year 
marriage; however, she did not report any of the incidents. The perpetrator became very jealous 
when he learned she had a relationship with the homicide victim by reviewing her phone call logs.

21 | P a g e 
 
The domestic violence victim explained the perpetrator had indicated he was tracking her 
electronically, but she did not know how. The perpetrator and the domestic violence victim had a 
fight approximately five days prior when he threatened to post provocative photos of her on 
social media. The perpetrator moved out of the house the same day and took his firearm with 
him. The domestic violence victim believed the perpetrator used the same gun to kill the 
homicide victim.

22 | P a g e 
 
FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
Due to the complexity of the case, the recommendations provided in this report are broad 
approaches to educating, preventing, and addressing domestic violence. After careful 
consideration and much discussion, the Team makes the following recommendations: 
 
1. Research need for Domestic Violence Education and Prevention Programs  
Due to the upswing in available technologies and exposure through social media coupled with 
teen/young adult use of technology and social media, there is a heightened need for prevention 
and education programs that focus on healthy relationships, resource access, and appropriate 
use of technology and public platforms.  The DVFRT recommends: 
• Create a DVFRT subcommittee to explore current, community-based initiatives and 
programming that are focused on healthy relationships, specifically for youth, including 
recognizing healthy boundaries and engagement with technology and social media.  
• The same DVFRT subcommittee will seek to identify or develop a resource library and 
determine how to best share with residents and community partners. 
 
 
2. Explore the need for expansion of Domestic Violence Education and Awareness 
Campaigns 
While this recommendation can apply to all domestic violence cases, the Team recognized in this 
case that there were multiple opportunities for intervention, support, and redirection for all 
parties involved. The DVFRT wants to explore avenues for expanding current awareness 
campaigns and seeking external partnerships to create opportunities for greater knowledge, 
broader reach, and ideally, increased access to intervention and support before relationships 
escalate to fatalities. The DVFRT recommends: 
 
2.a Within the City of Phoenix: 
• The City of Phoenix HR Department, with support from the Phoenix Police 
Department, Fire Department, and Human Services Department/Victim Services

23 | P a g e 
 
Division, explore existing City training videos and review/develop new content and 
opportunities to enhance or focus on domestic violence awareness optional 
classes. 
• Research options for a DV training module for all Phoenix City employees to take 
on an annual basis. The Training module could include information about 
identifying domestic violence, available resources, and how to report on domestic 
violence. 
 
2.b External Partnerships: 
• The Team recommends researching (additional or new) opportunities for the City 
of Phoenix to coordinate and partner with large organizations (e.g. Suns, Mercury, 
Diamondbacks) to disseminate a public service video during major events. The 
video could be available by QR code throughout a venue (e.g., entrance, ticket 
office, restrooms, vending areas, merchandise stores). 
 
3. Research Options to Expand Sentencing Statutes to Include a Domestic Violence 
Enhancement 
Many other factors can be considered in Arizona’s felony sentencing schemes that allow for 
enhancements based on characteristics of the offense, however the nature of the relationship is 
not currently one of those enhancements. Domestic violence homicides have an impact and a 
reach, for those who remain after the death and for the perpetrators, that necessitate legislative 
recognition of this difference. This enhancement would give prosecutors the ability to reflect this 
difference and provide greater flexibility in negotiating plea agreements that result in both 
accountability and reduced re-victimization for witnesses and surviving victims. While this case is 
not a domestic violence homicide, the committee acknowledges that domestic violence 
motivated the homicide. The DVFRT recommends: 
• The City of Phoenix Police Department explore, with key stakeholders, the possibility of 
recommending a sentencing enhancement or increased punishment for a person 
convicted of any domestic violence homicide. If this legislative change is deemed 
appropriate, a recommendation will be sent to multiple legislative liaisons (e.g., City of 
Phoenix, MCAO, MAG, ACESDV) for further consideration.

24 | P a g e 
 
• The Team recommends a potential enhancement of two to five  years when the elements 
of domestic violence as defined in A.R.S. 13-3601 are proven, making the homicide a 
domestic violence offense. 
 
4. Present and Share Annual DVFRT Reports with Local Government Agencies  
The more domestic violence case reviews can be shared, the more awareness agencies will have 
to create system-wide improvements related to preventing and addressing domestic violence 
incidents. The DVFRT recommends: 
• Identify and recommend opportunities for the City of Phoenix to present the annual 
DVFRT reports to local government bodies such as Phoenix City Council and Maricopa 
Association of Governments.  
CLOSING 
The 2025 case review stood out from previous cases examined by the Phoenix DVFRT because 
the fatality involved the new romantic partner of a domestic violence victim rather than the victim 
themselves. Though they are less common, assaults and fatalities targeting domestic violence 
victims’ new romantic partners are still tragic outcomes that stem from domestic violence 
dynamics. Additionally, this case involved stalking through geo-tracking technology. Although the 
team had not previously reviewed a case involving stalking, it is frequently a component of 
domestic violence, and cyberstalking in particular is becoming increasingly prevalent in intimate 
partner violence. Stalking becomes increasingly dangerous, and sometimes violent, when the 
perpetrator is a current or former intimate partner. 
In reviewing this case, the Phoenix DVFRT aimed to identify potential system improvements. 
However, the team concluded that even though specific system improvements were not 
identified, this case nonetheless underscores the importance of education and awareness about 
the various forms and dynamics of domestic violence. The committee is grateful for the ongoing 
efforts by the City of Phoenix to address domestic violence and remains committed to supporting 
these initiatives wherever possible.

25 | P a g e 
 
2023/2024 DVFRT ANNUAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS UPDATE 
The DVFRT process also entails reporting progress on the previous year's report 
recommendations.  The 2023/2024 report findings, recommendations, and updates are in the 
chart below.  
2023/24 DVFRT Report 
Finding 
2023/24 DVFRT Report Recommendations 
Responsible Party 
Status 
Establish Protocols 
for Crisis Response 
Team (CRT) 
responses to 
Domestic Violence 
Calls 
The Team recommends that the Police 
and Fire Departments collaborate to 
develop a protocol for CRT response to 
incidents of domestic violence where the 
likely charges resulting from the incident 
include aggravated assault, attempted 
murder, or murder. 
 Consideration should be given to the 
presence of minor children at the scene 
and the level of violence inflicted on the 
victim(s). 
Phoenix Police 
Department 
 
 
Police Patrol/Investigations 
officers on scene will provide 
Dispatch and Fire phone numbers 
for improved communications 
and assist with safety concerns 
for CRT personnel. The Family 
Investigations Bureau has 
updated their protocol when 
responding to investigate 
domestic violence crimes to 
include the response of CRT when 
victims or witnesses are on scene. 
Dispatch has been informed not 
to cancel calls. 
The Team recommends that the Fire 
Department examine its policies 
 related to CRT response to domestic 
violence scenes. Current policy requires 
that police be present on-scene for CRT 
to respond but makes an exception for 
Behavioral Health Teams (BHT). To 
achieve greater consistency across 
programs, the Fire Department may wish 
to examine these policies. 
Phoenix Fire 
Department 
The Fire Department confirmed 
that Phoenix Police must be 
present on scene for the CRT to 
respond to domestic violence 
calls. 
Create protocols for 
medical follow-up 
in the weeks after 
victimization. 
The Team recommends that providers of 
forensic examinations implement a 
follow-up process for all client victims 
who have received a forensic medical 
exam. While preparing this report, Team 
members learned that such a program is 
currently under consideration by the 
provider of forensic examinations at the 
FAC. 
HonorHealth 
HonorHealth is conducting follow-
up phone calls to patients and 
tracking the calls on a 
spreadsheet.  Follow-up 
conversations with patients are 
being documented in their case 
notes.

26 | P a g e 
 
Advocate for 
Training for 
Emergency Medical 
Technicians (EMT) 
and Paramedics 
related to 
Strangulation. 
The Team recommends that the co-chairs 
reach out to the EMS Medical 
 Director at the Phoenix Fire Department 
to discuss the training requirements of 
EMTs, and paramedics related to 
strangulation and impeded breathing. 
Phoenix Fire 
Department 
The Phoenix Fire Department 
provides comprehensive initial 
paramedic training that includes 
clinical assessment and 
management of patients involved 
in domestic violence, airway 
trauma, and injuries related to 
strangulation and hangings. 
Additionally, PFD provides 
ongoing department-wide 
training and continuing education 
focused on adult and pediatric 
trauma, including the recognition 
and management of airway 
compromise and obstructed 
breathing. 
The Team recommends that on scene 
EMTs and Paramedics consult with their 
Medical Director when a victim of 
strangulation (impeded breathing) 
“refuses” transportation to a medical 
facility. 
Phoenix Fire 
Department 
PFD has protocols in place for 
EMTs and Paramedics to seek 
medical direction on high-risk 
refusals. 
Amend Data 
Collection Protocol 
The Team recommends that the Police 
Department consider including 
 “Strangulation / Impeding Breathing” as 
a separate category in their 
 annual report on domestic violence 
cases. 
Phoenix Police 
Department 
Phoenix PD is currently tracking 
strangulation cases.  Phoenix PD 
implemented a new department-
wide Records Management 
System (RMS) in Fall 2025. A 
drop-down category for 
strangulation was added, thus 
strangulation cases will be 
tracked and included in next 
annual domestic violence 
statistical report. 
 
The Team recommends that the Victim 
Services Division track reports of 
strangulation and impeded breathing in 
their case management system. 
Human Services 
Department 
Victim Services 
Division 
VSD confirmed this crime type 
category can be added to the 
Case Management System (CMS). 
Designated staff attended 
Strangulation 101 training 
through the Training Institute on 
Strangulation Prevention. Next 
steps include designating funding 
for strangulation training related 
to domestic violence for all VSD 
staff by June 2026. Once training 
completed, strangulation related

27 | P a g e 
 
policies and procedures will be 
updated also in 2026. 
Victim Services 
Case Management 
The Team recommends that the Victim 
Services Division consider changes to 
case management protocols to establish 
follow-up guidelines for staff members 
assigned to domestic violence cases. 
Human Services 
Department 
Victim Services 
Division 
VSD held case management 
discussions pertaining to follow 
up in domestic violence cases. 
Victim Advocates are providing 
follow up in the form of ensuring 
safety planning and identifying 
resources. VSD will create policies 
and procedures as related to 
general client engagement, follow 
up, and support by June 2026.

28 | P a g e 
 
The Team recommends that the Victim 
Services Division consider extending 
services to family members who witness 
domestic violence. 
Human Services 
Department 
Victim Services 
Division 
VSD staff offers services to family 
members who witness domestic 
violence. In August 2025, 
therapeutic counseling services 
became available for VSD clients 
including family members 
impacted by domestic violence 
homicides. Written procedures 
for serving family member who 
witness DV incidents will be 
added to an existing VSD 
procedure in 2026. 
The Team recommends that the Victim 
Services Division (VSD) consider 
 establishing a formal referral process 
with the Arizona Child and Adolescent 
Survivor Initiative (ACASI) for victims and 
surviving family members impacted by 
intimate partner violence fatalities and 
near fatalities. 
Human Services 
Department 
Victim Services 
Division 
VSD consistently refers to this 
agency for applicable cases. A 
formal referral process with 
ACASI is not necessary as victim 
advocates currently utilize ACASI's 
online referral form.

29 | P a g e 
 
Attachment A