Auto Accidents - James Novak

Appellate Court Allows Defendant’s Statement, Finding Any Error in Its Admission Was Harmless

James Novak Team — Wed, 05 May 2021 18:46:37 GMT

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI case involving a defendant who was alleged to have caused a serious accident while under the influence of methamphetamine. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court failed to exclude a statement used against him at trial. However, the court refrained from weighing in on whether the statement was admissible, finding instead that, even if it was improperly admitted, and error it caused was harmless. The case illustrates the importance of raising and preserving all valid arguments at trial.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant entered an intersection without stopping at a stop sign and while traveling over the posted speed limit. As the defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection, it struck an SUV that had the right-of-way. There were three passengers in the defendant’s vehicle. One died, and two others were seriously injured. The driver and two passengers in the SUV were also injured.

The defendant, who was also injured in the accident, was taken to the hospital. While at the hospital, a detective hand-cuffed the defendant to the hospital bed and unsuccessfully attempted to interview him. Later, as the detective was out of view but within earshot, he heard the defendant tell a nurse that he had taken methamphetamine earlier in the day.

A bit later, police officers obtained a warrant to take the defendant’s blood. The blood test results confirmed the presence of methamphetamine in the defendant’s blood.

The Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress, arguing that the statement he made to the nurse should not be introduced at trial. The trial court denied the motion, a jury convicted the defendant, and he then appealed.

On appeal, the defendant again argued in support of his motion to suppress. However, the court rejected the defendant’s argument. The court did not look at the merits of the defendant’s motion, however, holding that any error in introducing his statement into evidence was harmless in light of the fact that the chemical test results indicated the presence of methamphetamine in his blood.

Interestingly, the court noted that the defendant did not claim that his statement to the nurse was used to obtain the warrant to obtain his blood. Had the defendant made such a claim, it is possible the outcome could have been different.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI crime, contact the Law Offices of James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is a veteran criminal defense attorney with significant experience handling all types of DUI cases, ranging from first-time offenses to very serious DUI accident cases. With his help, you can rest assured that you are in good hands. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the allegations you face, give the Law Offices of James Novak a call at 480-413-1499 today. Attorney Novak offers all prospective clients a free consultation.

The Importance of Credibility in an Arizona DUI Case

James Novak Team — Tue, 27 Apr 2021 22:28:32 GMT

One of the most important issues in many Arizona DUI cases is the credibility of the witnesses who take the stand. While some cases involve only police officer witnesses, other times the defendant decides to testify in their own defense or presents a defense witness. When the testimony of two witnesses differs, the finder of fact (either the judge or the jury) must determine which witnesses’ testimony is more credible.

A recent opinion issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals is an example of a DUI case that came down to the credibility of the witnesses. In that case, the police received a call from a person explaining that a car had crashed into a home. The caller told police that they did not see the actual collision, but could hear it. They also relayed that there was an African American man on the scene wearing a white shirt, jeans, and a hoodie. There was no mention of anyone else in the car or at the scene.

Police officers arrived on the scene two minutes after the 911 call. Upon their arrival, officers saw the defendant, matching the description of the driver. Officers stopped the defendant, who dropped a set of car keys. The lock/unlock buttons on the car keys worked on the vehicle that was involved in the collision.

At trial, the defendant’s claim was that he was a passenger of the car and that the driver fled the scene immediately after the accident. The defendant testified on his own behalf and presented several witnesses. Another witness took the stand and, when asked who was driving the car, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A third witness testified that, on the day of the accident, the defendant had called her explaining that he was involved in an accident as a passenger, and that another man was driving.

Notwithstanding the defendant’s evidence, the jury convicted him of several DUI-related charges. The defendant filed an appeal. However, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, noting that the jury was free to come to the conclusion it did based on the evidence presented.

This case highlights the importance of properly preparing witnesses to testify when developing a defense strategy. Police officers testify frequently, and many are quite skilled at presenting their side of the story in a convicting manner. To counter an officer’s testimony, a witness must come across as reliable and credible.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Offense?

If you were recently arrested and charged with an Arizona drunk driving offense, give Attorney James E. Novak a call to see how he can help. At the Law Offices of James E. Novak, Attorney Novak skillfully represents clients facing all types of DUI offenses, helping them develop effective defenses to the charges. With his help, you can rest assured that you, your case, and your future are in good hands. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation today, call the Law Offices of James E. Novak at 480-413-1499.

Arizona Finds Witness Statements Were Improperly Admitted, but Affirms Defendant’s DUI Conviction

James Novak Team — Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:28:40 GMT

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona drunk driving case, discussing the defendant’s challenges to certain statements admitted at trial. Ultimately, the court held that, while the statements should not have been admitted, the defendant failed to show that admission of the statements constituted a “fundamental error.”

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, witnesses watched as a car drove into their driveway and crashed into their vehicle. There were three people in the car, the defendant, his girlfriend, and another male. One of the witnesses identified the defendant as the driver. However, in the witness’ statement to the police, the description of the driver matched both the defendant as well as the other male in the car.

When police arrived, the witness again identified the defendant as the driver, as did several of the witness’ housemates. The defendant was arrested and charged with DUI. He then told police that he had been drinking, he was driving at some point, but he did not get into an accident. His defense at trial was that he was not the driver.

At trial, the witness testified, but none of his housemates took the stand. However, in closing, the prosecutor referenced the housemates’ positive identification of the defendant, explaining that “all of the witnesses” identified the defendant as the driver. The defendant did not object to this statement, but later filed an appeal after the jury convicted him.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

On appeal, the court first noted that because the defendant did not object to the introduction of the housemates’ identification, the court would apply a “fundamental error” analysis. This meant that the defendant must not only show that admission of the statements was in error, but also that the error either 1.) went to the foundation of his case, 2.) deprived him of an essential right, or 3.) was so egregious he could not possibly have received a fair trial.

The court held that the prosecutor’s statement referring to the housemates’ identification of the defendant as the driver was in error. However, the court went on to hold that the defendant could not meet his burden to prove he was prejudiced as a result of the error. The case seemed to be a close call, in that the court disagreed that evidence of guilt was overwhelming. However, the court found that there was “sufficient” evidence of guilt, after considering the witness’ statement and the defendant’s partial admission. Thus, although the housemates’ statements should not have been admitted, the court affirmed the jury’s guilty verdict.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona Drunk Driving Offense?

If you have recently been charged with an Arizona DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is an experienced Tempe criminal defense attorney with a passion for defending his clients’ rights. When you bring Attorney Novak onto your defense team, you can rest assured that you are in capable hands. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation, call 480-413-1499 today.

Court Rejects Motion to Suppress Identification in Recent Arizona DUI Accident Case

James Novak Team — Fri, 04 Dec 2020 17:43:19 GMT

Late last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI accident case discussing the defendant’s motion to suppress an identification made by witnesses to the accident. Ultimately, the court determined that the witnesses’ identification was not unduly suggestive, and even if it was, the defendant could not show that he was prejudiced as a result of the identification. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a car crashed into a tree right outside of a school. Two school employees were notified of the crash, and walked outside to see the defendant inside the car in the driver’s seat. The witnesses saw the defendant try to drive away, but when he couldn’t’ get his car to move, he exited the vehicle. The witnesses told the defendant to stay on the scene, but he walked away towards a nearby convenience store.

One of the witnesses left briefly to get his car keys. He located the defendant a short time later, and called 911. The witness told police that the driver of the car had on jeans and a dark T-shirt. Not long after the 911 call, an officer stopped the defendant because he matched the description. The officer noted that the defendant appeared to be intoxicated. As the officer was waiting for the witness to come to make an identification, the defendant admitted to being the driver. When the witness showed up, he identified the defendant as the driver, and the officer arrested the defendant. Another witness provided police with photographs and a video of the defendant leaving the scene of the accident.

After he was convicted, the defendant appealed, arguing that the witness’s identification was admitted in error. The defendant argued that the identification was suggestive and unreliable. Because the defendant did not raise this issue at trial, the court reviewed the claim under the “fundamental error” standard, which requires the defendant to establish an error and then show that he suffered prejudice as a result.

The court concluded that the defendant did not meet his burden. First, the court found that the lower court did not err in admitting the identification. The court noted that the witness had ample opportunity to observe the defendant at the scene, and that it was reasonable to assume the witness was paying close attention, because a tree had fallen on the defendant’s car. The court acknowledged that the description given to police was somewhat vague, but noted that “even if these descriptions are vague, a lack of evidence on one factor does not render an identification unreliable.” The court also relied on the fact that the witness was certain in his identification, which was made less than an hour after the accident.

The court then held that, even if there was an error in admitting the identification, the defendant did not suffer any prejudice from its admission. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Accident?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI accident, contact Attorney James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is an experienced criminal defense attorney, dedicated to providing his clients with the vigorous defense they deserve. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you face, call 480-413-1499 today. You can also reach out through our online form.

The Operation Element of an Arizona DUI

James Novak Team — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:12:57 GMT

When the government brings a criminal case against a citizen, it is the government’s burden to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Specific to Arizona DUI cases, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was intoxicated and that they were in physical control of a vehicle. This second element was the recent focus of a state appellate decision.

According to the court’s opinion, a family was traveling northbound on Interstate 17 when the driver saw headlights drifting off and on the road. A few moments later, the driver could see that the headlights sharply veered off the road and it appeared as though the vehicle was rolling. The driver made a U-turn to see if anyone needed help.

One of the family members in the vehicle saw the defendant about ten feet away from a damaged pickup truck. When the family stopped, the defendant approached them and asked them not to call the police. The defendant asked for a ride to the next exit, assuring the family that he was not in need of medical attention. However, the defendant was bleeding, and the family called an ambulance.

While waiting for an ambulance, the defendant asked the family to tell the police that they saw another person exit the vehicle and flee. The defendant got into the back seat of the family’s car, and again asked them to take him to the next exit. The family refused.

Police arrived and noticed that the defendant exhibited signs of intoxication. The responding officer also noted that the defendant had injuries that were consistent with him being the driver of the pickup truck. One of the family members told responding officers that “he’s going to try to tell you that there was another driver; I did not see another driver.”

The defendant was ultimately tried and convicted of driving under the influence. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence presented by the government was legally insufficient to prove that he was the driver. The court disagreed, finding that the circumstantial evidence presented through two of the family members, as well as the responding officer, was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The court noted that, while the defendant insisted that another person was driving, the other testimony contradicted his version of the events, and that the jury was free to accept or reject his testimony.

Have You Been Charged with an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been charged with a DUI in Arizona, contact attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. A DUI conviction can have a serious impact on your future, and may result in jail time, probation, fines, and may also limit future career opportunities. Attorney Novak is a respected Tempe DUI lawyer with extensive experience handling all types of drunk driving cases. As a former prosecutor, Attorney Novak understands how the other side thinks, and puts that knowledge to use for each of his clients. To learn more about how Attorney James Novak can help you defend against the charges you are facing, call 480-413-11499 to schedule a free consultation.

Arizona Court Affirms Denial of Motion to Suppress after Applying Nevada State Law

James Novak Team — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:36:13 GMT

In the vast majority of Arizona DUI cases, the applicable law that governs the case is that of the jurisdiction where the offense occurred. However, in very rare circumstances, another state’s laws may apply. This puts state courts in the difficult position of applying a foreign jurisdiction’s law. In a recent Arizona DUI case, the court explained why the defendant’s motion was properly denied under Nevada law by the trial court.

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant’s vehicle swerved into oncoming traffic, colliding with another vehicle. The defendant suffered serious injuries in the accident. While police were investigating the accident, they noticed that the defendant smelled of alcohol. A helicopter took the defendant to a hospital in Nevada.

While in the hospital, Arizona law enforcement called the Nevada hospital and requested they draw the defendant’s blood. The requesting officer did not discuss whether a warrant was necessary, but later testified that he did not believe it was his responsibility to obtain a warrant. The hospital complied with the request without obtaining a warrant. At the time, the defendant was unconscious. The sample was given to a Nevada law enforcement officer. The test results revealed that the defendant had a blood-alcohol content of .21, well over the legal limit of .08.

The defendant moved to suppress the blood-alcohol test results, arguing that under the U.S. Supreme Court case Missouri v. McNeely, warrantless blood draws were unconstitutional. The prosecution argued that this case arose before the McNeely decision was issued, that Nevada law applied to the case, and that the Nevada good-faith exception applied.

The procedural history of the case is somewhat complex, but ultimately, an Arizona appellate court held that the Nevada good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied, and that the test-result evidence should not be suppressed. In so holding, the court first noted that the exclusionary rule is imposed as a consequence of illegal police violating the rights of the defendant and is designed to deter police misconduct.

The court concluded that the blood-draw was illegal under Arizona law, but legal under Nevada law. This was based on the application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The good-faith exception prevents the suppression of illegally seized evidence if the officer obtaining the evidence was acting in good faith when he came into possession of the evidence. Here, the court first held that Nevada law applied because that was where the blood was drawn. Additionally, it was a Nevada officer that first took possession of the defendant’s blood while he was in a Nevada hospital. The court went on to hold that there would be no deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule in this case because there was no misconduct involved. The court explained that the Nevada officer reasonably relied on the request of another law enforcement officer, which was done in good faith.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI offense, contact the dedicated Tempe DUI defense attorney, James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is an experienced criminal defense attorney with unrivaled knowledge, passion, and skill. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you face, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

Police, Prosecutors, and Judges Take Arizona DUIs Very Seriously

James Novak Team — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 16:58:10 GMT

Anyone who has ever been arrested for an Arizona DUI knows that the criminal justice system treats driving under the influence very seriously. Over the years, legislatures across the country have continued to enact stricter penalties for those convicted of driving under the influence, even for first-time offenders.

When someone is arrested for an Arizona DUI, it is often the first time they have faced criminal charges. This can be a very stressful and traumatic experience because defendants rarely know what punishment they could face if they are found guilty, and they often have no idea about how to go about contesting the charges.

While some Arizona DUI cases are best settled before trial, there are a number of cases in which the prosecution cannot meet their burden to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In other cases, police officers overstep their authority by stopping motorists, searching their cars, or asking them to take blood- or breath-tests. The fact is, Arizona DUI charges can be fought, and won, in many cases.

Not all DUI cases can be won, however. And when an Arizona criminal defense attorney’s client is found guilty of DUI, the lawyer’s job is far from over. For the most part, Arizona judges have discretion in how they sentence those found guilty of a DUI. An attorney whose client either pleads guilty or is found guilty will assist in presenting their client in the most favorable light, showing the judge the positive contributions his client has made over the course of their life. This mitigation can often result in more favorable sentences.

Defendant in Fatal Tempe DUI Case Sentenced to 15.5 Years’ Imprisonment

Last month, a man was sentenced to over 15 years in prison after he was found guilty of manslaughter, aggravated assault, and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. According to a recent news report covering the man’s case, the accident took place back in 2016, when the victim was rear-ended by the defendant who traveling at a speed of between 80 – 100 miles per hour. The defendant’s blood was taken after the accident, which revealed that there was alcohol in his system.

Contributing to the defendant’s lengthy sentence was the fact that he picked up another DUI arrest while he was out on bail awaiting sentencing for the 2016 DUI.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested for an Arizona DUI offense, you should contact Attorney James E. Novak to discuss your case as soon as possible. Arizona DUI offenses are taken very seriously. However, police and prosecutors routinely overstep their authority, and in the process, violate the rights of defendants. Attorney Novak is a dedicated Arizona DUI defense attorney who can assist you aggressively fighting your case or in negotiating with the prosecution in hopes of coming to a fair resolution. To learn more, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation to discuss your case with Attorney Novak today.

Additional Resources:

A.R.S. § 28-1381

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: DUI And No Insurance: What You Should Know, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, May 1, 2018

Nearly 300 DUI Arrests Were Made in Arizona over 4th of July Weekend, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, July 9, 2018

What You Should Know About Drunk Driving Cases That Involve Auto Accidents

James Novak Team — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:00:00 GMT

When you or someone that you care about is involved in a drunk driving arrest, it can be a very taxing time. This is why it’s so important to seek legal assistance. DUI attorneys will provide you with strong counsel and peace of mind, helping you make sound decisions about all of your legal options. This will be especially crucial if the drunk driving arrest involves a motor vehicle collision or any kind of injury accident. Let’s take a brief moment to consider these kinds of accidents right now.

Auto Accidents Caused by Drunk Driving

Drunk driving always has to be taken seriously. According to the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, there were 31,263 drunk driving arrests in the state of Arizona in 2012. There were a total of 227 alcohol-related driving fatalities in that year.

According to numbers from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, there were 5,428 alcohol-related car crashes in 2012, 3,720 of which resulted in injuries. Given these numbers, you can understand why law enforcement is very stringent with such matters.

Aggravated DUI/Felony DUI

If you are driving under the influence and cause an auto accident to occur with another motorist, a bicyclist, or a pedestrian, you will be charged with an Aggravated DUI (aka Felony DUI). An Aggravated DUI charge is far more serious than a regular DUI charge simply given the circumstances of the incident and the arrest.

Your blood alcohol concentration will also determine if you are charged with an extreme DUI (BAC of 0.15 to 0.19) or a super extreme DUI (BAC of 0.2 or greater).

Penalties for Aggravated DUI/Felony DUI

The penalties for a Felony DUI are harsh. An Aggravated DUI is a Class 4 Felony, which means that those arrested for an Aggravated DUI can face between 1.5 to 3 years of prison and pay fines of up to $150,000. Repeat DUI offenses or other charges may add to these penalties, which is why getting legal representation on your side will be critical.

In addition to jail time and the fines associated with the Aggravated DUI charge, you can also expect the following additional penalties:

Revocation of your driver’s license for at least three years
Probation for up to five years
Mandatory community service
Mandatory traffic school
Mandatory drug/alcohol screening or counseling
Installation of an ignition interlock device
Points on your driving record
Felony conviction on your criminal record

How Our Legal Team Can Help You

It’s important that those arrested of an Aggravated DUI/Felony DUI get a skilled criminal defense attorney on their side. A DUI defense lawyer will make sure that you receive a fair shake from the law, going over all evidence and ensuring that the legal system works as designed. Your attorney will look into ways of reducing the penalties that you face, making bargains on your behalf while also advising you on your legal options going forward.

Do not make a mistake and attempt go it alone, especially when facing such dire charges. You need the team at the Law Office of James E. Novak on your side.

Learn More About Your Legal Options

If you or someone you love has been involved in a drunk driving auto accident of any kind, it’s of the utmost importance that you contact our Tempe, Arizona DUI defense lawyers today. The team at the Law Office of James E. Novak can help you in your time of legal need and ensure that our system works fairly for you.