In an August 2023 case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant successfully got his convictions overturned by arguing that the prosecution showed the jury too many prejudicial images during the defendant’s trial. Originally, the defendant was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor. His case went to trial, and a jury found him guilty. On appeal, however, the higher court considered the defendant’s argument, overturned the conviction, and set the case for a new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a detective in Arizona made contact with the defendant as part of a local sting operation. The detective posed as a 13-year-old girl and responded to the defendant’s advertisement asking for sexually exploitative photos. During the pair’s communications, the defendant continuously said that he did not mind the girl’s young age and that he wanted to be sent pictures of the girl’s genitalia.

Eventually, the State obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s phone and apartment. The State found many exploitative photos of young girls on the defendant’s devices, charging him with two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. The defendant’s case went to trial.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

In a June 2023 case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed his conviction for sex trafficking. The defendant was charged after investigators discovered he was trafficking at least one young girl, and a jury found him guilty as charged. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court improperly admitted evidence relating to the typical characteristics of a pimp; the higher court, however, disagreed with the argument and kept the conviction in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators approached a teenage girl one evening after they saw her walking up and down the street, conferring with men that were driving by. The officers noticed that she would talk to the driver, go and speak with the defendant (who was waiting nearby), then go back to the driver. When the officers approached the girl, she told them she was 16 years old and was a runaway. She also told them she was being trafficked and that the defendant was forcing her to give all of the money she earned as a prostitute to him.

The State charged the defendant with several crimes, one of which was sex trafficking. His case went to trial, and a jury unanimously found him guilty. The court sentenced him to 135 years in prison. The defendant promptly appealed.

Continue reading

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his guilty convictions for kidnapping and sexual assault. The original charges were based on an incident during which the defendant allegedly held his ex-girlfriend against her will and tried to sexually assault her. Claiming his innocence, the defendant went to trial, and a jury found him guilty. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have let him introduce evidence of his ex-girlfriend’s previous false accusation of rape against his brother. Ultimately agreeing with the trial court’s decision, the court of appeals denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant’s ex-girlfriend was dating his brother, and the group of acquaintances all attended the same gathering one evening. The defendant was intoxicated, and he allegedly came and found his ex-girlfriend while she was asleep in one of the spare bedrooms. At that point, according to the ex-girlfriend, the defendant pushed himself on top of her, bruised her body, and tried to sexually assault her.

The woman managed to jump off the bed and run away. She raced to a neighbor’s house and asked them to call 911. Police officers quickly arrived and found the defendant hiding behind his car. They arrested him, and he was criminally charged.

Continue reading

In a recent case arising out of an altercation between neighbors, the Arizona Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s appeal of his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault, disorderly conduct, and assault. After the defendant was originally charged with these offenses, his case went to trial, and a jury found him guilty. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have allowed him to introduce evidence of the victim’s own violent history, which could have changed the outcome of the case. After considering the defendant’s argument, the court affirmed the original convictions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two neighbors were talking outside of their homes one day when one of the individuals asked the other if he wanted a cigarette. The second individual, the victim in the case, said yes, and the first individual, the defendant, went inside to get the cigarette. The victim approached the defendant’s door and immediately heard yelling from inside the house.

The defendant came to the door, at which point he pulled out what looked like a gun. He pointed it in the victim’s direction and hit him in the head. The victim broke out of the defendant’s headlock and started moving away slowly.
Officers arrived at the scene and discovered that the defendant appeared to be under the influence of an unknown substance. They brought him to the police station, and they charged him with two kinds of assault as well as disorderly conduct.

Continue reading

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, the defendant asked for the court to reconsider a decision regarding his conviction for child molestation. Originally, the defendant was charged and convicted after he inappropriately touched a young girl. He confessed to the crime in front of several police officers, but he later claimed he lied during the confession because the police were being so aggressive. Finding no evidence that the defendant was lying, the higher court ultimately denied his appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant lived with his girlfriend, his girlfriend’s daughter, and the couple’s baby son. The couple eventually broke up, and the ex-girlfriend moved out while the defendant cared for the children alone. Once, when the ex-girlfriend came to visit, she looked at the defendant’s phone and found a video of him inappropriately touching her eight-year-old daughter.

The ex-girlfriend called the police, who immediately brought the defendant in for questioning. They interrogated him, first reading him his Miranda rights then asking him about the offense in question. The defendant admitted to having inappropriately touched the girl.

Continue reading

In a recent case on appeal from a Maricopa County superior court, the defendant asked that his conviction for discharging a firearm at a nonresidential structure be reversed. Importantly, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that he intentionally shot a nightclub building on the night of the incident in question. Agreeing with the defendant’s argument, the court reversed and remanded the case, giving the defendant another chance before the trial court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant got into an altercation one evening outside of a nightclub with another individual. He ended up trying to shoot the individual, but he missed and hit the actual nightclub instead. No one was injured, but the bullets hit a metal tripod inside the building as well as a block wall on the outside of the building.

The defendant was charged with discharging a firearm at a nonresidential structure, aggravated assault, and endangerment. At trial, he argued that he was acting in self-defense, and the jury found him not guilty of aggravated assault and endangerment. The jury did, however, find him guilty of discharging a firearm at a nonresidential structure, and the defendant was sentenced accordingly.

Continue reading

Contact Information