DUI Accident - James Novak

Arizona Defendant Loses Appeal in Negligent Homicide Case Stemming from DUI Accident

James Novak Team — Tue, 26 Jul 2022 13:23:18 GMT

In a recent case coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant appealed his convictions for negligent homicide, endangerment, criminal damage, and driving under the influence. On appeal, the defendant brought forth several arguments, one of which was that the trial court improperly excluded evidence that could have swayed the jury in his favor. The court of appeals considered the defendant’s argument and disagreed, ultimately denying the appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was drinking with friends one evening at a birthday party. Around 1:30 am, the defendant decided to drive home, thinking he was sober enough to operate a vehicle without danger to any others on the road. As the defendant drove, though, he entered into what he later described as a dreamlike state and became confused. He stopped his car, stood in the middle of the highway, and realized he had been driving southbound in a northbound lane.

The defendant got back in his car but continued driving in the wrong direction on the road. He directly collided with another car, and all four passengers in the second car died immediately. The defendant was taken to the hospital, and blood alcohol tests revealed that he had a blood alcohol concentration of approximately .083 at the time of the collision.

Later analysis revealed that the victim driving the vehicle had also been drinking and that she had a blood alcohol concentration of .117. The defendant was criminally charged, and his case went to trial.

The Decision

After being found guilty, the defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly excluded evidence that would have worked in his favor. When the defendant’s lawyer attempted to include the victim driver’s blood alcohol concentration as part of his evidence, the trial court denied the request, stating that this information was not relevant for purposes of the defendant’s guilt. The defendant disagreed, and on appeal argued that it was impossible for the jury to objectively assess the risk involved in the accident if they did not know the full story of each driver’s blood alcohol content.

The court countered this argument, maintaining that the victim driver’s blood alcohol content was irrelevant to the jury’s determination. It was undisputed, said the court, that the victim driver was staying straight in her lane and driving in the proper direction at the time of the accident. Her blood alcohol concentration could only show, at best, her ability to avoid the collision, not the fault of the collision itself.

Because the court of appeals agreed with the trial court on this issue, the defendant’s original convictions were affirmed.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges in the State of Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we are prepared to defend you against your criminal DUI charges in Arizona, regardless of the severity of the charges. Our philosophy is that “the client’s needs and defense come first,” and we are committed to serving you so that you can succeed in your case and move on with your life. For a free and confidential consultation, call us today at 480-413-1499.

Arizona Court Vacates Defendant’s Manslaughter Conviction Following DUI Accident Based on Insufficient Jury Instructions

James Novak Team — Tue, 10 May 2022 14:06:54 GMT

In a recent case coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant appealed his conviction for manslaughter. Originally, the defendant was found guilty when he hit a pedestrian while driving his car above the neighborhood’s posted speed limit. The pedestrian died, the defendant was charged, and a jury eventually found the defendant guilty of manslaughter. On appeal, the defendant argued that the court failed to properly instruct the jury as to who exactly had the right of way during the accident. Agreeing with the defendant, the court vacated the manslaughter conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving between 44 and 55 miles per hour in an area where the speed limit was posted as 40 miles per hour. As he was driving, the defendant struck and killed a victim as she stepped off the median and began to walk into the roadway. At the time, the victim was walking along a brick pathway that ran perpendicular to the road on which the defendant was driving.

Immediately after the crash, a police officer came to the scene. While speaking with the defendant, the officer noticed that the defendant was slurring his speech and had drooping eyes. A subsequent blood sample revealed that the defendant had a blood concentration of 36 nanograms of Xanax and 14 nanograms of THC per milliliter.

The defendant was criminally charged and at trial, he was found guilty of manslaughter.

The Decision

On appeal, one of the defendant’s main arguments was that the trial court failed to correctly instruct the jury on relevant laws. Specifically, the defendant argued that the court did not ensure that the jury knew about Arizona laws explaining who has the right of way when a pedestrian crosses the road in an area outside of a designated crosswalk.

Arizona law clearly states that when a pedestrian crosses the road and walks in an area that has not been labeled as an official crosswalk, that pedestrian loses the right of way. Thus pedestrians crossing outside of crosswalks must yield to drivers on the road. Here, said the defendant, this law was crucial to the jury’s ability to decide his case. While the court did make sure the jury understood the definition of a crosswalk, they offered no guidance as to what a reasonable driver must do when faced with a pedestrian crossing in the middle of the road.

The court agreed with the defendant that without this instruction, the jury could not make an informed decision as to whether or not the defendant was indeed guilty. Thus, the court vacated and remanded the defendant’s manslaughter conviction, as well as the sentence that went along with it.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges After a Car Accident in Arizona?

If you have found yourself at odds with the State of Arizona due to a victim’s injuries after a DUI car accident, call us at the Law Office of James E. Novak. Our team will bring a strong knowledge base to your case that allows you to maximize your chances of successfully getting your criminal charges vacated. For a free and confidential consultation, give us a call at 480-413-1499.