ARIZONA DUI TOPICS

August 29, 2024

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

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.

July 31, 2023

Arizona Defendant Raises Question of Statutory Interpretation in Resisting Arrest Case

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

In a recent case coming out of the Supreme Court of Arizona, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his conviction for resisting arrest. According to the defendant, the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the law that applied to his case, and the verdict should be reversed because of the trial court’s error. Ultimately finding no error, the higher court affirmed the decision, and the defendant’s conviction remained in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, state troopers were on the lookout for a stolen vehicle one evening when they noticed the defendant loading items into the car they were looking for. The officers approached the defendant to arrest him, and he started running. A physical altercation ensued, but the officers were eventually able to arrest the defendant and take him to the station.

The defendant was charged with resisting arrest. He pled not guilty, his case went to trial, and the jury unanimously found him guilty.

November 10, 2022

Arizona Court Decides Defendant Need Not Own a Car to Comply with Ignition Interlock Statute

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

Recently, an Arizona court of appeals had to decide the implications of a statute that allows defendants convicted of extreme driving under the influence to be released from jail early if they install an interlock device on their car. Specifically, the statue says that defendants guilty of extreme DUI can have 31 days cut off their jail time if they install interlock devices in their vehicles. In this instance, the court had to decide what would happen with a defendant convicted of extreme DUI if she or he did not, in fact, own a car in the first place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with aggravated and extreme aggravated driving under the influence. The defendant sold her car to pay for a lawyer, later pleading guilty to the felony. The court sentenced the defendant to 45 days in jail, adding that all but 14 of the days could be suspended if the defendant were to equip her car with an ignition interlock device for 12 months.

The defendant asked to be released early from probation, but the State pointed out she had not installed the required ignition interlock device and that she would still have to serve her full 45 days in jail. In response, the defendant argued she did not install the device because she no longer owned a car, and thus that she should not be subject to the full time in jail. The superior court decided to release the defendant early, and the State appealed.

August 31, 2022

10 Instances Where Breathalyzer Tests Can Be Inaccurate

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

Quantifying the impact of alcohol upon a person has long been a goal of the scientific community, with studies dating back as early as 1874. In the contemporary legal setting, the breathalyzer test, also known as alcohol breath testing, is touted as a highly accurate and definitive tool for detecting Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). BAC is a vital measure for determining if someone is operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Unfortunately, breathalyzer tests are not always as accurate as they are portrayed to be. Here are 10 instances where breathalyzer tests can miss the mark:

Breath machines are responsive to temperature and will provide inaccurate readings if not calibrated to adjust to a change in ambient temperature.
The pattern of breathing may affect the validity of a test. Holding your breath for 30 seconds could result in an increase of a BAC of .07% to .081% or more.

June 11, 2019

Arizona’s High Court Finds Defendant’s Consent to DUI Blood-Test Not Involuntary, Simply Because Police Advised Him of the Consequences of Refusing the DUI Test

When is Your Consent to a DUI Breath or Chemical Test Considered Involuntary, under the State's Implied Consent Law?

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

A DUI breathalyzer or chemical test is considered a protected search under the 4^thAmendment of the U.S. Constitution. This means that police need a warrant with probable cause to conduct a DUI breath, blood or urine test, even under Arizona’s Implied Consent law.

There are a few exceptions to the warrant rule, one of which is voluntarily consent. If the driver expressly consents to a breath or chemical test, the officer is not required to have a warrant.

Arizona courts have held that if a person was coerced by the officer to take the DUI test then their consent is not voluntary (State of Arizona v. Valenzuela, 2016). An involuntary consent does not relieve police of the requirement of obtaining a warrant.

February 16, 2018

Does Enhanced Sentencing Apply under DCAC if Victim is Fictitious?

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

The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that enhanced sentencing does not apply if the victim is fictitious.

Under Arizona’s Dangerous Crimes against Children statute (DCAC), a person convicted of a sexual crime against a child is subject to enhanced sentencing. These penalties are severe and designed to provide greater punishments to those convicted of the offenses.

The question for the Court in this case was whether or not enhanced sentencing should be imposed under A.R.S. § 13-705(P) (1), when there was no actual victim.

August 1, 2017

How to Avoid Probable Cause to Arrest for Unlawful Flight

5 Things You Should Know about Your Rights in a Police Stop and Arrest

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

You cannot be arrested solely for a non-criminal traffic violation in Mesa, AZ.

However, that changes if you fail to stop or try to elude police when you are signaled to pull over. Failure to stop violates Arizona’s unlawful flight laws.

The most important thing you can do when you realize police are signaling you to stop, is to pull over safely and promptly.

April 7, 2017

How to Protect Your Rights Under the Unconscious Clause

Arizona’s Unconscious Clause permissible only with consent, warrant, or case-specific exigent circumstances; What happens when your rights are violated

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

In Arizona police are permitted to request a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw, from a DUI suspect who is unconscious under A.R.S. §28- 1321.

The blood draw may be unconstitutional if an individual’s rights are violated in the process.

Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the unconscious clause is permissible only when invoked non-routinely, under exigent circumstances that are case-specific.

March 30, 2017

What You Need to Know about the Medical Blood Draw Exception

4 Things Arizona Supreme Court Needs to Admit Results

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

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a person has the right to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures.

This protection extends to a DUI blood test. Consequently, police need a suspect’s consent or a search warrant to obtain a blood sample for a DUI investigation.

Without the person’s consent or a search warrant, it is unlawful for the police to collect a DUI blood sample.

November 27, 2016

How to Avoid, Challenge and Actually Overcome Your DUI Mistake

5 Things you need to know about Arizona DUI laws and defense

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

No one who drinks expects to get a DUI or be the victim of an alcohol related disaster.

It is important to remember that others on the road may be driving dangerously due to drug or alcohol impairment.

Often people who have been drinking, lose track of how much they are drinking, and have not planned for an alternative ride home or arranged for a designated driver.