Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

October 15, 2024

Arizona Court’s Opinion Reinforces Case Law Dictating Trial Court Jurisdiction Over Defendants Over Eighteen Years of Age

In a recent opinion published by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the court vacated a trial court’s dismissal of an assault indictment. On appeal, the State had argued that the trial court should not have dismissed the defendant’s indictment, which was based on the defendant’s status as a minor at the time of the offenses. The higher court agreed with the State, ultimately concluding that the dismissal was in error. The court sent the case back down to the trial court for additional proceedings.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant allegedly committed several assaults in 2022, all while she was in the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. The defendant turned eighteen years old several days after the last assault. Soon after, a grand jury indicted the defendant on aggravated assault, assault by a prisoner with bodily fluids, and aggravated assault. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that she was under 18 when she committed the crimes. The court dismissed the indictment.

The State’s Appeal

The State promptly appealed this dismissal, citing Arizona law that says that when a defendant who is eighteen years or older is criminally charged, the court can hear those proceedings regardless of whether the defendant committed the crime before her eighteenth birthday. Because of case law establishing this fact, the defendant’s case was correctly heard by the superior court instead of by a juvenile court. Therefore, the dismissal should be reversed.

September 30, 2024

Recent Arizona Court Opinion Highlights Reality that Multiple Offenses Means Harsher Sentences

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In Arizona, if a defendant with prior convictions is found guilty of a crime, that defendant will face a harsher sentence than if he or she had no prior convictions. A recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, highlights this reality, which can be difficult for defendants trying to argue for lighter and more favorable sentences.

In the case before the Arizona court, the defendant appealed a trial court’s decision to sentence him to 15 years in prison for a) possession of a narcotic drug for sale and b) violating the terms of probation. According to the defendant, it was unfair that the trial court sentenced him based on the fact that he was guilty of two previous felony convictions. Instead, the court should have based the sentence on only one previous felony conviction, which would have resulted in a lesser sentence.

The higher court reviewed the trial record and found that the defendant presented no evidence to indicate that he was guilty of only one prior felony conviction instead of two. Instead, he vaguely testified that the two armed robberies he committed in the past happened “on the same occasion in his early life.” The prosecution, meanwhile, presented evidence from two separate court hearings in 2015 that were based on two separate robberies, one on August 22, 2015, and a second on September 1, 2015. This evidence showed that there were, indeed, two previous felony convictions.

August 29, 2024

“Motive” as a Reason to Admit Otherwise Inadmissible Evidence at Trial

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

When can an Arizona court admit evidence regarding a previous, seemingly unrelated offense during criminal proceedings? The answer is tricky, as there are multiple exceptions to the rule of evidence indicating that testimony about a prior bad act is inadmissible during trial. One such exception is when the evidence speaks to a party’s motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, or plan. In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, the defendant successfully appealed his conviction by arguing that certain evidence at trial should have been admitted under this “motive” exception.

Trial Proceedings

In the case before the Arizona court, the defendant was originally charged with aggravated assault and domestic violence assault. The State charged him after his girlfriend, the victim in the case, called police officers indicating that the defendant had physically assaulted her. During the defendant’s trial, he tried to present evidence demonstrating that the victim had previously made multiple false allegations against him in an attempt to get the defendant into custody. The trial court told him he could not present this evidence, given that it was extrinsic and not relevant to the offense at issue. A jury later found the defendant guilty as charged.

Appeal

On appeal, the defendant argued the evidence should have been admitted, since it spoke to the victim’s motive in the case. The higher court agreed. Certain evidence of other crimes, said the court, may be admitted to show a person’s motive. Here, the victim’s prior fabrications could have established her intent to lie about the assault in the present case. This evidence could have made a difference in the outcome of the defendant’s case, as the jury would have been more likely to find him not guilty had it heard the evidence that was excluded.

August 5, 2024

Dealing with Prejudicial Evidence in an Arizona Criminal Trial

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

When evidence regarding a defendant is more prejudicial than it is relevant, it is the defense attorney’s job to fight to exclude the evidence in order to keep the jury from being unnecessarily biased. In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, the defendant successfully appealed his conviction of second-degree murder based on the fact that the evidence the prosecution introduced at trial was both prejudicial and irrelevant. In its opinion, the court emphasized the fact that it is unfair for the prosecution to introduce unhelpful evidence “for the express purpose of influencing the jury’s view” of the defendant.

The Evidence at Trial

This case began when the defendant was charged with second-degree murder. The defendant admitted to killing the victim in the case, but he argued at trial that he shot the gun out of self-defense. This self-defense argument was crucial for the defendant’s chance at receiving a more favorable sentence. During trial, the court allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence regarding weapons and ammunition that investigators found in his home. The weapons had nothing to do with the specific gun that the defendant used to shoot the victim.

To justify using the evidence, the prosecution argued that the evidence helped the jury assess the defendant’s reasonableness, or lack thereof. The prosecution explained that the defendant was a “paranoid” person, and having guns in his home helped the jury see that he was unreasonable, and therefore less likely to reasonably act in self-defense.

June 30, 2024

The “Good-Faith Exception” as Applied to a Motion to Suppress in Arizona

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the court had to decide whether a police officer’s honest mistake before a traffic stop meant the trial court should have suppressed evidence that he found during the stop. The case highlights the leniency that some courts will give to officers based on what is called the “good-faith exception” to normal standards of suppression.

Motion to Suppress

The defendant in this case originally filed a motion to suppress after an officer found him with fentanyl. The lead-up to the defendant’s arrest went as follows: the defendant and an acquaintance were chatting at a local gas station. An officer saw the pair repeatedly enter and exit a car, then they drove off together. Finding their behavior suspicious, the officer radioed dispatch to see if either person had active arrest warrants. Dispatch reported back that while there were no active warrants, the defendant’s acquaintance, who was driving the vehicle, had an invalid driver’s license.

The officer conducted a traffic stop, and he inspected the driver’s license. As it turns out, the driver’s license was valid, and the dispatcher had made a mistake in reporting the opposite. While the officer was still chatting with the pair, a third individual approached the car and informed the group that the defendant had dropped something near the front of the car. As it turned out, this dropped item was the defendant’s bottle of blue pills, later identified as fentanyl.

June 10, 2024

Self-Defense Justification in Arizona Assault and Violent Crime Cases

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In Arizona, a person is justified in using physical force if the force is immediately necessary for that person’s protection. This justification is called self-defense. In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the court found that the defendant did not prove he acted in self-defense during a violent altercation. With only the defendant’s oral testimony as proof of the self-defense, there was ultimately not sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s claim.

Details of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and the victim in this case got into a verbal argument one day at work. The defendant worked for a beverage company, the victim worked for a grocery store, and the defendant was dropping off beverages at the victim’s store. Because of confusion over the beverages, the individuals started yelling at each other.

The victim told the defendant to leave the store, and the defendant stabbed the victim from behind several times. The defendant then stood on top of the victim and continued to stab and kick him. The victim went to the hospital and sustained several serious injuries. Investigators later reviewed surveillance camera footage and determined that the defendant was the person who assaulted the victim.

May 15, 2024

Appellate Court’s Opinion Reinforces Importance of Fourth Amendment Protections in Sexual Exploitation Case

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In an April 2024 opinion regarding sexual exploitation of a minor, Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals sided with the defendant by ruling that the government should not have searched the defendant’s personal property without a warrant. The case revolved around the defendant’s spy camera, which he put in a bathroom to secretly record the young foster girls living in his home. On appeal, the court had to decide whether the officer searching the camera’s SD card had the right to do so without a warrant.

The Officer’s Search

The government first became aware of the hidden camera when a teenage foster girl living at the defendant’s house spotted it in the common bathroom and brought it to her Department of Child Safety caseworker. The caseworker called the police, and one of the police department’s detectives examined the device a few days later. On it, he found videos of the girls in the bathroom.

Proceedings Below

The defendant was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor, and his case went to trial. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing the officer should have had a warrant to search the SD card associated with the camera. The trial court denied this motion, and a jury ultimately found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant was sentenced to 90.5 years in prison.

May 10, 2024

Arizona Court Interprets Eighth Amendment in Sexual Misconduct Case

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

Under the U.S. Constitution as well as the Arizona Constitution, the Eighth Amendment protects individuals from “cruel and unusual punishment.” Courts interpret this standard differently in different contexts. In a new case coming out of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, the court offered some guidance about interpreting the Eighth Amendment in relation to a defendant’s lengthy prison sentence.

Procedural History

In the opinion, the court detailed the facts of the case: the defendant, when he was 15 and 16 years old, committed repeated forced sexual acts on two young children that he was responsible for babysitting. The children came forward a couple of years later, and the defendant was arrested and tried after he turned 18 years old. He pled not guilty, and a jury found him guilty of four counts of sexual conduct with a minor, plus four counts of molestation of a child. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a minimum prison term of 208 years, meaning he would be in prison for the rest of his life.

The defendant appealed the trial court’s sentencing decision, arguing that under the Eighth Amendment, the sentence was unnecessarily harsh. Especially considering that he was a teenager at the time, argued the defendant, the court sentenced him to time that was not proportionate with the severity of his crimes.

April 30, 2024

How a Prosecution May Use Expert Testimony to Support Their Case

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

When defending against Arizona criminal prosecutions, understanding the nuances of expert testimony can be a game-changer in shaping the outcome of a case. The Arizona Court of Appeals recently released a ruling that helps to explain the requirements for a witness in a criminal case to testify as an expert. These standards and requirements may help a skilled attorney exclude harmful evidence from being admitted against their client by a proposed expert.

Expert testimony involves the presentation of opinions or conclusions by individuals with specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular field relevant to the case. Unlike lay witnesses who testify about facts within their personal knowledge, expert witnesses provide professional opinions to assist the court in understanding complex issues.

The recently decided opinion involved a case where the defendant appealed convictions for aggravated assault, and the victim testified as to the source of damage to a vehicle. On appeal, the defendant argues that this was expert testimony that was improperly admitted at trial. In the recently released opinion, the appellate court discussed the factors that define expert testimony versus lay testimony.

April 17, 2024

Arizona Defendant Asks Appellate Court to Reconsider Lower Court’s Refusal to Provide DNA Evidence

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

Recently, an Arizona criminal defendant challenged a trial court’s decision to deny his request for DNA evidence. The defendant was originally charged with burglary, and after he pled not guilty, his case went to trial. A jury found the defendant guilty of two burglaries, and the trial court sentenced him to 12 years in prison as a result. On appeal, the defendant argued that the DNA evidence he asked for could have led to a completely different outcome in the case, and it was unreasonable that the court denied his request. The higher court ultimately disagreed, siding with the State and affirming the defendant’s guilty convictions.

Burglary Offenses in Question

The State originally charged the defendant with committing five burglaries and one theft of five commercial establishments. Two of the establishments took place inside a restaurant and a coffee shop, and investigators found the defendant’s fingerprints at both locations. There was also video surveillance linking the defendant to the two establishments. The prosecution submitted this evidence at trial, and the jury found the defendant guilty of burglary in both the restaurant and coffee shop. Regarding the additional burglaries, where the investigative team found no fingerprints, the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

Defendant’s Request for DNA Evidence

After trial, the defendant filed serval motions, including a request for DNA testing of the items that the perpetrator touched while burglarizing the restaurant and the coffee shop. According to the defendant, if this testing produced another individual’s DNA instead of his own, he likely would not have been convicted of either burglary, since the evidence showed the same person likely committed both offenses. When the trial court denied this motion, the defendant promptly appealed.