Video and witness accounts trace Aaron Goodyke’s movement from a nearby home to the canal where he died, police say.
PHOENIX, AZ — Investigators building a murder case in the death of Aaron Goodyke are relying on a chain of evidence that begins with security video at a south Phoenix home, continues through witness sightings near a canal and ends with the discovery of his restrained body in triple-digit heat.
Goodyke, 33, was found dead June 25 with his hands and chest secured to his wheelchair with material that appeared to be plastic bags. Police arrested Hector Corrales, 41, and Troy Wright on allegations of first-degree murder and kidnapping. Wright later died in Maricopa County jail, leaving Corrales as the only surviving publicly identified defendant. The accusations against Corrales have not been proven, and the medical examiner’s final findings on Goodyke’s death had not been publicly released in the reports available by July 27.
The physical scene supplied the first set of clues. Officers went to the area of 22nd Place and Fawn Drive at about 8:30 p.m. after receiving a report of “unknown trouble” involving a man tied to a wheelchair on the south side of a canal. They found Goodyke unresponsive and pronounced him dead. Police observed that his upper body and hands were bound, his clothing had fallen around his lower legs and several footprints crossed ground that appeared recently disturbed. Those observations suggested that more than one person may have moved through the area before officers arrived.
The location mattered because it was close enough to a home investigators soon connected to Goodyke. He had been staying with Gloria Barajas, whose son is Corrales. Goodyke’s mother told police that he had diabetes and had lost part of his left leg in an amputation in April. Barajas said he arrived after being removed or facing removal from a hotel and stayed for about a week. She described his health as steadily declining because he refused food, water and a trip to the hospital, according to court documents cited by news organizations.
Investigators obtained video from Barajas’ property rather than relying only on the accounts of people who had been there. Police said the recording showed Corrales and Wright restraining Goodyke’s arms and securing him to the wheelchair with plastic bags. During the encounter, the chair was tilted backward and Goodyke appeared to strike the rear of his head against the house. The recording was important because it reportedly captured actions before Goodyke was removed from the property, providing a time-stamped visual record that could be compared with later statements.
Barajas told investigators the confrontation followed an attempted trip to the hospital. She said Goodyke first agreed to leave, then changed his mind and began flailing his arms as Corrales and Wright tried to put him into a vehicle. That account could explain how the physical struggle began, but it does not by itself explain why he was later taken toward the canal. According to investigators, Wright wheeled Goodyke away from the home. Public reports did not describe any ambulance call, request for police assistance or other attempt to obtain professional help after the alleged restraint.
The next part of the chronology comes from witnesses who encountered Goodyke near the canal. According to the arrest account, two people saw him there while the daytime temperature was above 105 degrees. One of them reportedly spoke with Goodyke, who was still alive. The witnesses continued on their way, then passed the area again roughly an hour later and saw him in the same location. Their observations may help investigators estimate how long he remained exposed, although authorities have not released an exact timeline or estimated time of death.
The witnesses eventually told their daughter what they had seen. She drove to the canal and found Goodyke dead, according to the court account. That sequence links the earlier sighting to the emergency call that brought officers to the scene. Detectives can test the reported timing against phone records, dispatch logs, security-video timestamps and environmental data. Any differences between the accounts would not automatically discredit a witness, but they could affect how prosecutors describe the duration of Goodyke’s confinement and exposure.
Investigators also gathered statements about what happened after Wright returned from the canal. Barajas said she asked where Goodyke was and was told he was “fine,” according to reports describing the affidavit. Court documents later cited by 12News said Wright told another witness that he had wheeled Goodyke into the canal area. Direct statements attributed to Wright could be significant, but his death in custody may complicate whether and how prosecutors can introduce them in a future case against Corrales. A judge would have to decide any dispute over admissibility.
Police arrested Corrales two days after Goodyke was found. Officers initially detained him on an outstanding felony warrant connected to an alleged parole violation. Investigators said Corrales declined to discuss Goodyke’s death and was then booked on suspicion of first-degree murder and kidnapping. A decision not to answer police questions cannot be treated as proof of guilt. Prosecutors must instead rely on admissible evidence showing what Corrales did, what he intended and how his alleged conduct related to the death.
Wright was arrested July 2. By then, local reporting identified him as the second man accused of restraining Goodyke and moving him from the home. He was booked on first-degree murder and kidnapping allegations but died in jail during the holiday weekend. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office said the cause remained undetermined while the medical examiner’s work continued. No publicly reviewed report described a medical emergency, use of force or other event preceding Wright’s death, making it inappropriate to draw conclusions about why he died.
His death leaves investigators with evidence that can no longer be tested through an interview, plea or trial involving Wright. It may also limit Corrales’ ability to challenge Wright’s account directly if prosecutors try to use statements attributed to him. At the same time, Wright’s death does not erase video, forensic evidence or independent witness testimony. The surviving prosecution will turn on whether the evidence can establish Corrales’ personal role rather than treating the two men’s alleged actions as interchangeable.
The medical evidence remains another major gap. News reports said Goodyke had diabetes, a recent amputation, poor food and fluid intake and declining health before the alleged restraint. Investigators also documented a possible head impact and exposure to severe heat. Each factor could have contributed to his death, but the public record reviewed did not identify a final cause. A medical examiner may use an autopsy, toxicology testing, medical records and scene evidence to determine which conditions were lethal and whether the death legally qualifies as a homicide.
That finding could shape the prosecution without necessarily deciding it. A homicide classification means death resulted from another person’s act, but it does not determine criminal guilt or the proper charge. Conversely, a complicated medical history would not automatically clear a defendant if prosecutors can show that alleged restraint or abandonment accelerated the death. The central legal issue is causation: whether the charged conduct was sufficiently connected to Goodyke’s death under Arizona law.
The kidnapping allegation requires a related but distinct showing. Authorities allege Goodyke was restrained in the chair and moved to the canal against his will. Defense attorneys could argue that the men initially acted to help an ill person reach medical care or prevent him from injuring himself. Prosecutors are likely to emphasize what allegedly happened after the hospital effort ended, including the decision to keep him bound, remove him from the home and leave him outside. The purpose and duration of the restraint may matter as much as how it began.
Several unanswered questions could determine the case’s direction. Police have not publicly said whether the plastic material was tested for fingerprints or DNA, whether the footprints were documented for comparison or whether other cameras recorded the route to the canal. It is also unclear who made the final emergency call, precisely when Wright returned to the house and whether Corrales accompanied him during any part of the trip. Those details could establish whether one man acted alone at the canal or whether the alleged conduct remained a joint undertaking.
The strongest publicly reported evidence consisted of the home-security recording, witness accounts, scene observations and statements summarized in court documents. Corrales remained accused but not convicted. Wright’s death was under separate review, and Goodyke’s medical findings had not been announced. Until those investigations and court proceedings advance, the evidence trail presents a detailed allegation but not a final determination of how Goodyke died or who bears criminal responsibility.
Author note: Last updated July 27, 2026.