Phoenix DUI Law Blog

November 30, 2023

Arizona Defendant Argues Body Camera Footage Inadmissible at Trial, but Court of Appeals Disagrees

In a recent case before a court of appeals in Arizona, the defendant took issue with evidence that the lower court admitted during his trial. Originally, the defendant was charged with aggravated domestic violence. His case went to trial, a jury found him guilty, and the defendant appealed, arguing that one of the police officer’s body camera videos should not have been part of the trial. After reviewing the defendant’s argument, the higher court ultimately disagreed and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged after a pedestrian saw him and his partner arguing on the sidewalk. Apparently, the defendant had pulled his partner’s hair, hit her on the head, and snatched her phone from her hand to throw it on the ground. Once police officers arrived to investigate, the defendant’s partner was at their son’s school, where she had been heading when the altercation ensued. She was in the front office, visibly upset.

The State charged the defendant with aggravated domestic violence. During trial, the State introduced evidence of the police officer’s body camera, which showed the defendant’s partner’s demeanor and distress when she was in the school’s front office. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he promptly appealed.

November 15, 2023

State of Arizona Appeals Lower Court’s Suppression Order in Case that Highlights Issues with Officer’s Prolonged Traffic Stop

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

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the State challenged the lower court’s decision to suppress evidence of drugs that an officer found in a defendant’s vehicle. An officer originally pulled the defendant over for a traffic violation, and after a prolonged stop, the officer found drugs in the defendant’s vehicle. When the defendant filed a motion to suppress, the lower court granted it. On appeal, the higher court affirmed this ruling, siding with the defendant by affirming that the incriminating evidence was rightfully suppressed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer noticed while on patrol that the defendant was following another car too closely as he drove by. The officer stopped the defendant and immediately began asking him questions about where he was headed. As he continued to ask questions, the officer asked the defendant to leave his vehicle and sit in the passenger seat of the patrol car.

The officer explained to the defendant that his job was to find individuals that were trafficking drugs. He also assured the defendant that he would only give him a warning for the traffic violation. The officer then asked the defendant if he had drugs in the car, and the defendant admitted he had marijuana in his vehicle.

October 30, 2023

Arizona Defendant in Aggravated Assault Case Challenges Guilty Conviction Based on Officer’s Muted Body Camera

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

In a September 2023 case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant appealed a jury’s finding that he was guilty of aggravated assault. The defendant was first charged after a security guard saw him attack a man on the sidewalk. The defendant pled not guilty, and he also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the officer involved in the investigation muted her body camera during a potentially critical part of her interview with the victim. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and he appealed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a security guard for a local business was working the night shift when he noticed the defendant on the business’s property. Finding the defendant’s presence suspicious, the officer finished his shift and drove around to find the defendant. He ended up locating him at another individual’s workplace, and he immediately saw the defendant attack the individual on the sidewalk. The defendant used a knife to stab the individual’s neck and back, and the security guard immediately detained the defendant until police officers could arrive.

Later, investigators found a knife with DNA from both the defendant and the individual on the sidewalk. The State charged the defendant with aggravated assault, and he filed a motion to dismiss. The lower court denied that motion, and a jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant promptly appealed the lower court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.

October 15, 2023

Arizona Defendant Caught in Drug Exchange, Leading to Guilty Conviction

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

In a recent case before an Arizona Court of Appeals, the defendant asked for a reconsideration of his convictions and sentences for two counts of sale of dangerous drugs. Originally, the State charged the defendant when it used an informant to catch him in the act of selling methamphetamine. The defendant pled not guilty, his case went to trial, and he received a guilty verdict. Reviewing the case on appeal, the higher court examined the lower court’s record and ended up affirming the original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators worked with an informant to catch the defendant selling methamphetamine. The informant contacted the defendant two separate times to buy the substance, and both times, the informant returned from the sale with a white crystal substance. After both of the purchases, detectives analyzed the material, which tested positive for methamphetamine.

The State charged the defendant with two counts of sale of dangerous drugs. His case went to trial, and during trial, the State introduced video recordings of the transactions as well as the bags with the substance inside.

September 30, 2023

Arizona Defendant Loses Appeal in Attempted Murder Case, Despite Court’s Extensive Review of Record

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

Recently, an Arizona court of appeals sided with the State in an appeal revolving around a defendant’s conviction for attempted murder. The defendant was first charged after an incident in which he grabbed hold of a woman, assaulted her, and attempted to kill her. His case went to trial, and the jury found him guilty. On appeal, the court of appeals reviewed the trial court’s record and ultimately decided that the defendant’s conviction should remain in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was staying in a home for individuals who were having difficulty securing housing. A nonprofit organization had helped him secure the housing, and after a few days of staying in the home, the nonprofit’s director came by to see how everything was going. The director, along with two of her coworkers, began walking from room to room in the house.

When the director came to the defendant’s room, she informed him that he would be moving from the unit in which he had been residing. The defendant immediately pulled out a knife and tried to shut the door to slam the director in the room with him. He then attacked her and stabbed her in the neck. The director’s coworkers came to her rescue, but the defendant continued to lunge at her and attempt to hurt her.

September 22, 2023

Arizona Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Aggravated Assault Conviction, Despite Self-Defense Argument

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

Recently, a court of appeals in an Arizona criminal case affirmed the defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault. The defendant was first charged after an altercation between himself and a man standing at a bus top – the incident became violent, and the defendant shot the man once in the stomach. A jury found the defendant guilty of assaulting the man, and he promptly appealed. Reviewing the record of the case, the higher court found that the conviction was proper, denying the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was at a convenience store close to a bus stop on the evening in question. A man was standing at the bus stop, and the defendant approached him. The two men looked as if they were about to fight, but before anything happened, the defendant pulled out a gun and shot the man one time in the stomach. The man was treated for several serious physical injuries.

The State charged the defendant with two counts of aggravated assault. The case went to trial, and the defendant was found guilty. The court then sentenced the defendant to 15 years in prison.

September 14, 2023

Arizona Defendant Appeals Rape Conviction on Grounds that Confession was Involuntary

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

Recently, an Arizona court of appeals had to decide whether to grant a defendant’s request to overturn his convictions and sentences for sexual assault, kidnapping, and sexual abuse. Originally, the defendant was charged after he dragged a coworker to a warehouse and raped her; his case went to trial, and he was found guilty. On appeal, the defendant argued that the jury should not have been privy to the confession he made to an investigator since the confession was made involuntarily. The higher court considered this argument but eventually rejected it, denying the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and the victim in this case worked together, and the defendant had repeatedly asked the victim to go on a date with him. The victim denied the defendant’s advances, and the defendant retaliated because of the rejection. On one morning, when the two individuals were working together, the defendant dragged the woman into a warehouse and slammed her into the wall, then raped her.

A motorcyclist driving by saw the defendant dragging the woman on the ground, and he called 911. Soon after, several police officers arrived at the scene, found the woman unconscious, and arrested the defendant.

The victim sustained multiple injuries, including a concussion and injuries consistent with strangulation. The defendant was taken to the police station. An officer read him his Miranda rights, and he immediately confessed to injuring and raping the woman.

August 31, 2023

Arizona Court Agrees with Defendant in Aggravated Assault Case, Protecting the Right to Remain Silent During Interrogation

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

An Arizona appellate court’s July 2023 decision in an assault case highlights the importance of safeguarding the defendant’s right to remain silent during interrogation. In this case, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and endangerment. A police officer interrogated the defendant, and he declined to answer several of her questions. Later, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the crimes. He promptly appealed, and the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving by his old apartment building when he saw an acquaintance walking on the sidewalk. The defendant and the acquaintance exchanged some words, and the defendant pulled out a gun and fired several shots at the acquaintance. Police arrived at the scene and arrested the defendant.

Officers took the defendant to the station, where they read him his Miranda rights and asked a series of questions. At several points during the 30-minute interview, the defendant stated that he wanted to “pass” on the question and avoid answering for the time being. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty of aggravated assault and endangerment.

August 17, 2023

Arizona Court Re-Examines Use of GPS Data in Murder Case

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

Recently, an individual involved in an Arizona murder case appealed a lower court’s decision to use GPS data to track his car on the night of his brother’s death. The individual was with his brother and two friends on the evening his brother was killed, and one of the friends, this case’s defendant, was charged with the murder. Soon, though, the defendant filed a motion to compel evidence, asking the court to examine GPS data from the victim’s brother’s truck. According to the defendant, this evidence would show that the victim’s brother was the one who committed the murder. The court allowed the use of the GPS evidence, and the victim’s brother challenged this decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant, the brother, and two other friends were all together one evening. The events that transpired are unclear, but one of the friends was murdered in the early morning by knife wounds. Six days after the death, one of the individuals, the defendant in this case, was charged with the murder. Because the brother was also present, he was labeled as a “victim” in the case.

Shortly after the State charged the defendant, the defendant filed what is called a “notice of a third-party defense,” meaning he advised the court that he thought another person committed the murder – specifically, he thought the victim’s brother was the proper suspect.

July 31, 2023

Defendant in Drug Case Argues that Warrant Contained Material Representations Before Arizona Court of Appeals

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

In a recent court of appeals case in Arizona, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence related to possession of dangerous drugs for sale. When the defendant was originally charged, he filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence on the grounds that the detective’s search warrant that led to his arrest was legally insufficient. The court denied the request, the trial went forward, and a jury found the defendant guilty. The defendant appealed, arguing the court wrongly denied his motion to suppress.

The higher court agreed that the defendant’s argument should have been given more consideration, and it sent the case back down to the lower court. The trial court then held a hearing and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress for a second time. Again, the defendant appealed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

The main officer involved in this case received an anonymous tip that the defendant was selling drugs from his home, and the officer began to investigate. After some initial investigations, the officer requested a search warrant from the court, which would allow him to go into the defendant’s home without the defendant’s permission. The court issued the search warrant, and the officer went to the defendant’s house and found evidence of drug operations happening inside. The defendant was quickly arrested for possession of dangerous drugs for sale.