AZ CRIMINAL DEFENSE TOPICS

September 13, 2017

How to Challenge Your Narcotics Transportation for Sale Charges

A Review of 3 Uncommon Criminal Defenses Used for Drug Trafficking Charges

In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals drug case, the court considered a defendant’s conviction for narcotic drug trafficking charges. The defendant was sentenced to a presumptive five-year term of imprisonment and appealed the conviction.

The defense argued that (1) the drugs found in his car should have been suppressed, (2) improper profile testimony was admitted, and (3) the sanction imposed for a Batson violation wasn’t adequate.

Drug trafficking charges are multi-facet in nature, and challenges can take place on numerous fronts. In this article three types of challenges will be discussed:

August 21, 2017

What You Should Know about Threats, Guns and Assault Laws

Criminal Defense for Intimidation, Threats, and Firearms on School Grounds Mesa AZ

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

Currently the state of Arizona limits circumstances in which firearms can be carried onto school grounds.

Unless specifically outlined by law, carrying a loaded firearm on any school grounds will result in criminal charges under Arizona’s Weapons Misconduct law A.R.S. 13- 3102(12).

This article outlines the weapons misconduct laws related to guns on school grounds, threatening and intimidation (assault) laws; and criminal defense for weapons misconduct and assault charges.

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.

May 11, 2017

3 Things You Need to Know about Plea Deals and Deferred Prosecution

How to Protect Your Rights in a Plea Bargain and Deferred Prosecution

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

If you have criminal charges, it is likely that you will be faced with the decision of whether or not to take your case to trial. As an alternative to trial, you may be offered a plea deal. In some cases the prosecution can offer participation in a deferred prosecution program if it is available for certain types of criminal charges.

Last year Maricopa County Superior Court reported that of 99.8 percent of terminated criminal cases, only 2.2 percent went to trial.

The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) reported similar statistics in 2016. The USSC reported 97.3 percent of criminal cases were resolved without trial, while only 2.7 percent went to trial.

January 3, 2017

4 Deadly Arizona Criminal Charges in Domestic Disputes

Aggravated Assault, Weapons Misconduct, Domestic Violence, Failure to Obey Police Orders: Laws, Penalties, and Criminal Defense in Arizona

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

In Arizona, we recently learned of a tragic story.

Police officers answered a domestic dispute, and the suspect was fatally shot by police.

When the officer arrived on scene, he encountered a woman outside a home.

November 13, 2016

How to Challenge Marijuana Smuggling Charges Provoked By Duress

Arizona Supreme Court preserves defendant’s rights to inform jury of planned testimony in opening statements.

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

In any criminal trial, the timing in which the defense theory is presented to the jury, is equally as important as the defense itself.

In a recent case decided by the Arizona Supreme Court, the defendant was charged with Marijuana transportation, and challenged the charges using Arizona’s Dress defense.

The defendant testified that smugglers armed with weapons, forced him to carry large bundles of Marijuana into the Arizona desert.

September 25, 2016

3 Things You Need to Know About Miranda Rights

Arizona Supreme Court rules suspect was not in custody for purposes of "Miranda"; Facts about Miranda Rights that Police will Likely Not Tell You.

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

This year marks the 50^th anniversary of the landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court Miranda v. Arizona , 1966.

Since that time, police have been required to read suspects their Miranda rights while in custody before they are interrogated.

The Miranda principle has faced many legal challenges, including when police are required to read the rights.

August 26, 2016

Marijuana Odor Probable Cause for Search Warrant in Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court Adopts “Odor-Unless” Standard: What it means for Arizona and AMMA qualified users

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

The Arizona Supreme Court recently considered a case involving the question of whether or not the smell of marijuana was enough to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant.

The Court needed to evaluate this issue in light of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA).

The AZ Supreme Court ruled that Marijuana odor can establish probable cause, unless there are other facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the suspect’s activities were compliant under the AMMA.

July 25, 2016

Entrapment: The Most Important Requirement for Your Defense Revealed

Arizona Supreme Court Limits Use of Entrapment Defense in Cocaine Case

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

Is this too difficult to imagine?

You’ve just been released from prison. You are struggling to become a productive member of society.

You’re looking for job, and trying to get your life on back on track.

So far, no employer has been willing to hire you, due to your criminal record.

You’ve sold nearly everything you own, including your car to pay outstanding debts, and to try and make ends meet.

Day after day you wait for the bus to take you to town so you can continue your job search.

Then one day, you are approached by a man while waiting for your bus. The man asks you if you will purchase $20.00 of crack cocaine. He offers to pay you $10.00 to do the deal.

You hesitate, and think that selling drugs again was the last thing you ever intended to do.

Weary, desperate, and hungry, you err in judgement and agree.

The man takes you to buy the drugs from an acquaintance. You buy the cocaine for him. You give him the cocaine, and he pays you.

Following the exchange of drugs and money, the man immediately arrests you.

You now face returning to prison, and serving 8 to 10 more years for selling illegal drugs while on parole.

The man who approached you at the bus stop was an undercover police officer. You were clearly entrapped.

But you will not have a chance to gain an acquittal based on the entrapment defense, without doing this one very important thing…

That is, if you wish to challenge the charges by utilizing the entrapment defense, you must admit to the substantial elements of the crime.

In simple terms, you will need to admit that you committed the criminal act for which you were charged.

You are confused by this. It goes against everything you understood about your 5th Amendment rights and protections against self-incrimination. So you do not admit to the crime.

But the fact is, it doesn’t matter how much police deception or inducement was involved. Unless you are prepared to formally admit to the substantial elements of the crime, either in testimony or stipulation, the entrapment defense will not apply.

You are convicted and sentenced to return to prison to serve 9 more years. Your freedom was short lived.

Not only is this scenario imaginable, but the the high court of Arizona recently heard a case with similar circumstances. This statutory requirement was affirmed in that case.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the entrapment defense afforded under A.R.S. 13-206, is reserved for cases in which the defendant admits to the substantial elements of the crime.

In this article we examine the often misunderstood entrapment defense, and include the following featured topics:

Overview of recent Arizona Supreme Court ruling in a cocaine case;
7 questions and answers regarding application of the entrapment defense;
The requirements of making a valid entrapment claim in Arizona;
The burden of proof for entrapment;
Arizona entrapment law A.R.S. 12 – 206;
10 other drug crimes defenses besides entrapment;
Criminal defense for drug charges in Phoenix AZ

March 31, 2016

Your Right to Request Change of Judge in Arizona Criminal Court

Criminal Defense Challenges for Prohibited Possession of Firearms Charges in Arizona

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

Questions before the Court

The Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure afford parties the right to request a change of judge before trial. But these rights are not without limitations.

In a recent case, an Arizona appellate court reviewed a defendant’s conviction for misconduct involving weapons. The appeal centered around two arguments, one being the defendant’s request for a new judge.

First, defendant had requested a peremptory change of judge under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 10.2, which was denied by the trial court.

Secondly, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence used to obtain the conviction.

In this article we will also, take a closer look at the arguments, and summarize three concepts related to the Rules of Criminal Procedure for trial, which were addressed in this case:

The Right of the Parties to Request Change of Judge;
Special Actions v. Direct Appeals; and
Judgement of Acquittal

We will also discuss the proceedings, final ruling, the right to bear arms, procedural and evidentiary challenge in trial, and criminal defense for weapons charges.