Violent Crimes

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.

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 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.

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.

February 28, 2024

Arizona Defendant Successfully Appeals Assault and Homicide Convictions, Advocating for Self-Defense Instruction from Trial Court Judge

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

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the defendant argued that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct jury members on the possibility that she was acting in self-defense. The defendant was convicted of the following offenses: leaving the scene of a fatal accident, theft of means of transportation, aggravated assault, and negligent homicide. Following her appeal, the higher court vacated the two latter convictions and sentences, sending the case back to the trial court for a new trial on those counts.

The Incident in Question

The charges and convictions in this case stemmed from an incident involving several friends and a stolen vehicle. The defendant in this case went to a casino with a friend, and she borrowed a car from her roommate to get to and from the casino. Apparently, the defendant’s roommate had taken the car from an acquaintance, although the acquaintance had never filed a police report indicating that the car was stolen.
Before the defendant and her friend went home, they stopped by a gas station. At that point, the roommate’s acquaintance, who owned the car, approached the vehicle by quickly running up to it. He started yelling at the defendant, demanding that she return the car. The defendant became afraid, and she started to drive away. As she drove, she hit the friend that had accompanied her to the casino. The friend ultimately suffered a head injury and died from the incident.

The defendant was criminally charged, and her case went to trial. After being found guilty, the defendant promptly appealed.

February 15, 2024

Defendant Successfully Asks for Reconsideration of Sentence in Arizona Violent Crimes Case

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

At the beginning of February 2024, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, issued an order vacating in part a defendant’s sentences that resulted from the murder of his wife. The defendant originally faced charges for second-degree murder, abandonment of a dead body, and tampering with physical evidence. He appealed his convictions and sentences, partially on grounds that the trial court incorrectly calculated how much time he should serve given his guilty verdict. The higher court agreed with the defendant’s argument, ordering the court to resentence him according to its instructions.

Background of the Case

The opinion details the case’s history. One evening in October 2019, the defendant and his wife began arguing. Sometime between the hours of 7:15pm and 9:00pm, neighbors heard a gunshot, and investigators later learned that the bullet came from one of the defendant’s guns. The defendant’s wife was later found dead by the same bullet. The defendant had attempted to clean the bloodied carpet, the furniture, and the padding under the nearby turf, but stains remained that revealed what had occurred. Following the clean-up attempts, the defendant dumped his wife’s body by a ditch nearby.

Despite these attempts to hide the murder, investigators found enough evidence to link the defendant to the crime. He was criminally charged, and after a ten-day trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts. The court sentenced the defendant to the maximum amount of time for all three convictions. The defendant promptly appealed.

September 14, 2023

Defendant in Arizona Murder Case Asks for Reversal Based on Involuntariness of Written Confession

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

Recently, an Arizona court denied a defendant’s appeal in a murder case involving the defendant’s former roommate. The defendant asked the court to consider the written confession that the State introduced at trial inadmissible; he claimed he did not write the confession voluntarily and, therefore, the prosecution should not have been able to use it. Looking at the facts of the case, the court eventually disagreed with the defendant and kept his conviction in place.

Facts of the Case

Officers found the dead body of a man in his apartment after a call from the man’s brother in November 2018. When the police officers went to check in on the man, they immediately noticed an odor upon entering his apartment building. They pushed open the door and found the man dead on the ground – it appeared as if he had been dead for at least several days.

The officers investigated and noticed that there had been several fraudulent charges coming out of the victim’s bank account. They linked these charges to the victim’s roommate, who became the defendant in this case. After further investigation, they arrested the defendant and charged him with the murder. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty as charged.

August 31, 2023

Defendant in Child Abuse Case Argues Fact Witnesses Should Have Been Allowed to Testify During Trial

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

In a July 2023 case involving a father and his deceased daughter, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his guilty verdict from 2017. The case originated when the defendant’s three-year-old daughter was pronounced dead, and the defendant was charged with child abuse. On appeal, the defendant argued the trial court unjustly kept out evidence from several of his friends and family members who would have testified about his diminished intellectual capacity. Deciding this testimony was properly excluded from trial, the court of appeals denied the defendant’s request to overturn the conviction.

Facts of the Case

Several years ago, the defendant’s daughter was brought to the hospital because of lacerations, infections, wounds, and swollen bones. Doctors tried to treat her, but she eventually died because of the injuries. Immediately, investigators began to try and find out how the girl became so injured. Eventually, their evidence led them to the defendant in this case. He was charged with child abuse and first-degree felony murder.

Before trial, the trial court conducted something called “competency proceedings.” These proceedings allow the court to determine if the defendant is mentally competent enough to stand trial. The court found that the defendant was, indeed, competent. His trial proceeded, and he was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

August 17, 2023

Expert Testimony in Arizona Child Abuse Cases

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

In a recent case before the Arizona Supreme Court, the defendant argued that the lower court improperly prohibited him from presenting expert testimony at his trial for child abuse, kidnapping, and murder. According to the defendant, this mistake was costly enough to warrant a reversal, and he should therefore have another chance to present his defense. Looking at the evidence in the case, the higher court ended up denying the defendant’s appeal, and the lower court’s judgment remained in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was originally charged after his three-year-old daughter was killed in 2015. When the daughter originally came to the emergency room for treatment, she had lacerations on her head, infections, a swollen knee, and wounds on her chest. She was also significantly malnourished, and it appeared as though she had been both dehydrated and abused.

The defendant was charged with child abuse, kidnapping, and first-degree felony murder of his daughter. His case went to trial, and a jury unanimously found him guilty. The defendant then promptly appealed.

February 28, 2023

Arizona Court of Appeals Finds Young Defendant’s Confession Was Not Improperly Admitted at Trial

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

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant in a murder and robbery case asked the court to find that his confession was made involuntarily. The defendant was charged when he was 16 years old, and he argued on appeal that when he confessed to the crime, he did not have the mental capacity to understand what he was doing. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the lower court’s decision and kept in place the original convictions and sentences.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and a friend of his were found near the body of a murder victim in November 2016. Both individuals were brought in for questioning, and the defendant said he wanted to speak with an attorney before saying anything to the officers. The officers granted this request, and they put both individuals into a room while they waited for attorneys to arrive. The defendant and his friend did not know that the room was being monitored by video and audio recording.

The defendant and his friend began talking, and the defendant stated that he had fired shots into the back of the victim’s head. The State admitted this confession at trial, and the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.