Phoenix DUI Law Blog

June 30, 2024

Challenging the Denial of a Motion to Suppress Based on Violent Police Activity in Arizona

Can a defendant successfully suppress incriminating statements he made during a confession because of violent conduct from the police? In short, sometimes. A recent case coming out of the Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division explores this question, and the case ultimately decided that when the police officers’ violent conduct happens separately from the interrogation itself, there are not necessarily grounds to suppress the defendant’s incriminating statements.

Facts of the Case

In the May 2024 case, the defendant was a suspect in a local homicide. The defendant’s wife thought he might have had something to do with the crime, and she reported it to the police. Officers eventually arrested the defendant and brought him in for a six-hour interrogation. After five hours, the defendant confessed to the crime. He filed a motion to suppress this confession, which the trial court denied.

On appeal, though, the defendant argued that the officers’ restriction on his freedom of movement meant that he made his confession involuntarily (and therefore, he argued, it should have been suppressed). According to the defendant, officers arrived to arrest him with rifles and canines, which was violent, and which contributed to his involuntary statement. He asked the court to consider this violent conduct when ruling on his appeal.

June 10, 2024

Swerving While Driving as Basis for Officers to Conduct Traffic Stop in Arizona

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

For a police officer to conduct a traffic stop in Arizona, he or she must have reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity is afoot. Without this reasonable suspicion, the officer has no legal basis to pull over a vehicle. How do courts define “reasonable suspicion?” There are some basic standards in place from Arizona case law, but one activity that courts have concluded could give rise to this “reasonable suspicion” standard is swerving while driving.

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, a defendant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence. After being charged, the defendant filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence, which the trial court denied. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court wrongfully denied this motion to suppress.

The facts of the case were simple: the defendant was driving, swerving from one lane to the next. An officer stopped him, smelled burnt marijuana on the defendant’s person, and quickly administered sobriety tests. The tests revealed that the defendant was driving under the influence.

May 31, 2024

“Knowing” vs. “Reckless” Murder in Arizona Criminal Cases

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

In the criminal context, the defendant’s mental state when committing a murder is important. In Arizona, courts differentiate between a murder that was “knowing or intentional,” and “reckless.” A recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, highlights the important differences between both categories – the difference, for better or for worse, can end up having a major impact on the outcome of a case.

Knowing or Intentional

In Arizona, a person committing a murder “knowingly” is aware of his conduct; that is, he is aware that he is murdering a person as he commits he crime. He is “intentional” when his goal is to murder. In general, a person that knowingly or intentionally murders another is subject to higher penalties and longer sentences than one who commits a murder recklessly.

Reckless

A reckless killing, on the other hand, happens when a defendant “is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.” In other words, the defendant is smart enough to know what he is doing is risky, but he presses on and does it anyway. A defendant would rather a jury find that he committed a murder recklessly than knowingly or intentionally, given that it would result in a lighter penalties and shorter sentences.

May 13, 2024

Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Case Revolving Around Possible Prosecutorial Bias

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

Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an important ruling clarifying how trial courts must deal with the conflict when they are faced with the reality of (or appearance of) bias. In the case at issue, the state charged a defendant with several fraud-related offenses, including illegally obtaining and using another person’s credit card. As it turns out, the credit card owner worked for the agency responsible for prosecuting the defendant. The trial court therefore had to decide whether to send the case to another jurisdiction for prosecution, given the agency’s potential bias in the case.

The Gomez Factors

In laying out the facts of the case, the higher court noted that one case in particular, Gomez v. Superior Court, outlines the factors a trial court should consider when deciding whether to disqualify counsel given possible bias. These factors are: (1) whether the request is made to harass the defendant; (2) whether the party asking for an attorney’s disqualification will be damaged if the request is not granted; (3) whether there are alternative solutions available; and (4) whether the possibility of public suspicion will “outweigh any benefits” afforded by the continued representation.

It is the trial court’s job, said the Arizona Supreme Court, to consider these four Gomez factors when deciding whether to disqualify counsel because of a potential bias. The court must make an adequate record describing how the facts of the case fit into each of the factors.

April 30, 2024

Arizona Court Approves Shortened Sentence for Defendant with Cognitive Impairment

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

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, the court affirmed a shorter sentence for a defendant with several mental impairments. The decision highlighted both the nature of the defendant’s crimes and the nature of his psychological evaluation, which both went into the trial court’s sentencing decision. Overall, the opinion serves as a reminder that while sentencing guidelines can be harsh for many defendants, there are also narrow circumstances in which sentences are amended for defendants under certain difficult conditions.

Facts of the Case

This case began when the defendant tried to use a fake $100 bill to pay at a local gas station. The attendant could immediately tell that the bill was fake and told the defendant that she would not be accepting the money. The defendant subsequently began yelling, and the attendant called the police. Even though the defendant had fled by the time the police arrived, the attendant offered a physical description to the officers.

That same day, the defendant went to another gas station and again tried to use a fake $100 bill. The employee recognized that the bill was fraudulent, told the defendant that he wouldn’t be accepting the money, and called the police once the defendant began hitting the window of the kiosk. The defendant fled, but again the attendant offered a physical description.

April 3, 2024

Arizona Court Decides Witness’s Employment History is Irrelevant for Sexual Misconduct Trial

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

A recent criminal case before Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals brought up important questions about challenging a witness’s credibility during trial. In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual conduct with a minor. On appeal, he argued that he was unreasonably restricted during his questioning of one of the prosecution’s witnesses. The court reviewed the rules of evidence at play and ultimately disagreed with the defendant, denying his appeal.

The Witness at Issue

During the defendant’s trial, the prosecution called an employee of the store where both the defendant and the minor child worked. Supposedly, the employee walked into the store to find the defendant and the minor having sexual intercourse, and she reported this incident to the police. She was thus the prosecution’s key eyewitness during trial.

The defendant’s attorney tried to challenge the witness’s credibility on cross examination by asking her about why she was ultimately fired from her job at the store. Apparently, the reason for the witness’s termination had something to do with the owner accusing her of stealing approximately $700 from the store. If the jury members knew that the witness had a history of lying, argued the defendant, they might have been able to see that she was not a credible witness. This would have led the jury to distrust her testimony and be more likely to believe the defendant, who maintained his innocence, instead of the witness.

March 31, 2024

Arizona Court Rules that Defendant’s Driving Plausibly Constituted “Felony Endangerment” Even Without Collision

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

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the defendant asked for a reconsideration of her convictions and sentences for felony endangerment. According to the defendant, the evidence presented at trial did not sufficiently prove that she endangered the two victims in the case, and her verdict should be overturned. The higher court reviewed the trial court’s record, analyzed the case, and eventually affirmed the original ruling.

Felony Endangerment

According to the relevant Arizona statute, felony endangerment involves “recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death.” In order to prove felony endangerment, the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence of every one of these elements – i.e., the defendant must have been reckless, she must have endangered another person, and the person must have faced a substantial risk of imminent death. Without addressing even one of these elements, the prosecution cannot meet its burden of proving felony endangerment.

The Defendant’s Case

Here, the facts of the defendant’s case were the following: the defendant was driving at night with a blood alcohol content of between .073 and .09, well above the legal limit. She drove closely behind another vehicle, repeatedly veering into the vehicle’s lane. At some point, the driver and passenger of the second car stopped and got out of the car to approach the defendant. The defendant hit the driver’s car with her hand, then got back into her vehicle and continued following the car and veering in and out of its lane.

March 5, 2024

Arizona Court Issues Important Ruling in Case Revolving Around “Red-Light Statute”

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

Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, issued an opinion regarding an Arizona statute requiring cars to stop at a red light. The opinion went beyond the traffic implications of this statute, delving into the question of what happens when an individual violates the statute and ends up causing serious physical injury or death to another person. Ultimately, the court concluded that the statute does not require a vehicle to have entered the intersection before causing an accident, meaning that defendants can be subject to the statute’s penalties whether or not their cars were in the intersection prior to causing the serious physical injury or death.

The Statutes in Question

The statute that the court first examined is often called the “red-light statute,” and it requires cars to stop at red lights. Under an accompanying statute, the “enhanced penalty statute,” “[a] person is guilty of causing serious physical injury or death by a moving violation if the person violates [the red-light statute] and the violation results in an accident causing serious physical injury or death.”

Essentially, the enhanced penalty statute means that if an individual violates the red-light statute, and if that violation leads to injury or death, the individual can face additional repercussions than he or she would face if only the red-light statute were in play. The enhanced penalty statute delivers harsher consequences for a driver that causes an accident at the intersection of a red light.

February 29, 2024

Arizona Supreme Court Rules on Expungement Issue, Deciding State Can Appeal Trial Court’s Decision on Marijuana Conviction

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

In a January 2024 opinion issued by the Arizona Supreme Court, the question of whether the State can appeal a trial court’s decision to expunge a defendant’s record was at issue. The court had to decide whether the State was legally able to challenge a lower court’s order granting a defendant’s request for expungement and restoration of his civil rights, which was issued in response to a marijuana-related offense. On appeal, the court concluded that the State had a reasonable right to challenge the lower court’s order, given that the drug offense ultimately affected the “substantial rights of the State.”

Background

This case was based on an incident in which the State charged a defendant with possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of narcotic drugs. The State charged the defendant in 2011, and the defendant pleaded guilty to several of his charges several months later. As part of this plea, the defendant admitted to having provided the means to another to sell or transport marijuana.

Nine years after the guilty plea, Arizona adopted Proposition 207, which is a law allowing trial courts to erase (or “expunge”) defendants’ records when the records pertain to a certain category of marijuana offenses. Because the defendant’s offense was eligible for expungement, he filed a petition with the trial court. The trial court granted the petition, and the State appealed.

February 20, 2024

How Arizona Law Enforcement Uses “Confrontation Calls” to Secure Evidence against Defendants

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

Arizona prosecutions for domestic violence and sexual assault cases often hinge on whether the victim can have the suspect admit to criminal behavior while law enforcement is recording the interaction. A recent judicial opinion in Arizona sheds light on the use of these recorded “confrontation calls” in criminal cases, emphasizing the need for individuals to be aware of their rights during such encounters.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published judicial opinion, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress statements made during a confrontation call between the defendant and his stepdaughter organized by the Avondale Police Department. The defendant faced molestation charges involving his step-granddaughters, and the confrontation call with the victim’s mother became a pivotal point in the legal proceedings. The court’s decision centered on the admissibility of the defendant’s statements during the recorded call, addressing concerns of coercion and voluntariness.

A confrontation call is a strategy employed by law enforcement to obtain statements from a suspect through a recorded phone conversation. In Arizona, such calls can be recorded with the consent of just one party involved, providing a legal framework for their use. In the recent case, the confrontation call aimed to gather his perspective on the alleged incidents and assess the admissibility of his statements.