Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with and convicted of extreme driving under the influence. When officers asked her to take a breath test on the road, her blood alcohol content was .20, significantly over the legal limit of .08. The high concentration of alcohol meant that the defendant was not only subject to penalties for driving under the influence, but also for a separate crime known as “extreme” driving under the influence.

In Arizona, if a person convicted of this crime installs an ignition interlock in her/his car, she or he can be released from jail 31 days ahead of schedule. Here, the defendant asked for early release from her probation, but the State argued she had not even finished her full time in jail, let alone completed the requirements of probation. The defendant stated that she should be released under the ignition interlock statute even though she had not technically complied – she did not own a car and thus could not have complied without purchasing an entirely new vehicle.

The lower court reduced the defendant’s sentence. The State promptly filed an appeal.

The Decision

On appeal, the court considered the facts of the case to decide whether the defendant was rightfully released early. It would not make sense, said the court, that if someone does not own a car, she or he cannot be eligible for an early release. Here, the defendant’s inability to afford a car should not affect whether she can terminate her sentence under the ignition interlock statute.

The State argued with this position, saying that even if a defendant in this scenario does not own a car, she or he should have to install an interlock device on any car in general. The court disagreed with this position as well, concluding that it would be useless to have defendants install ignition interlock devices in random cars in order to comply with the statute.

The court thus determined that the defendant in this case was rightfully released early, even given her inability to install a device in a car.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges in Arizona?

In Arizona, DUI and drug charges can be difficult to fight, but at the Law Office of James E. Novak, we bring 17 years of criminal defense experience and a client-first mentality to every one of our cases. If you are looking for an aggressive, knowledgeable, committed defense attorney, look no further. For a free and confidential consultation, call us today at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police offer received a call from local patrons that there was disorderly conduct at a nearby bar. The officer arrived at the scene and approached the defendant in this case, who he immediately identified as the source of the patrons’ complaint. The defendant had watery eyes, slurred speech, and difficulties with balance. The officer told the defendant he needed to leave the premises on foot, which he did.

Minutes later, some of the witnesses informed the officer that the defendant had driven away in his car. The officer left the property in his own car, eventually finding the defendant driving a few miles away. At the time, the defendant’s truck was weaving significantly between lanes.

The officer stopped the defendant and asked him to take a field sobriety test. The defendant refused, and the officer went through the process of getting a warrant to draw the defendant’s blood approximately two hours later. Analysis of the blood draw reviewed that the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was likely between .18 and .19. When the officer found out that the defendant had a suspended driver’s license, he charged the defendant with aggravated DUI.

The Decision

A jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and he appealed the conviction. Reviewing the record, the court did not find any error that would warrant a change in the verdict. The court did, however, notice that the defendant had spent time in prison while awaiting bail. This time in prison was not credited to the defendant when he was sentenced for the aggravated DUI, and the lower court should have taken this time into account when setting a release date for the defendant.

Under Arizona law, a defendant is entitled to credit for all time actually spent in custody related to an offense until he is sentenced to imprisonment. Thus, given the defendant in this case’s time in custody awaiting bail, his sentence should have been modified. The higher court made this change and pushed up the defendant’s release date by ten days.

Have You Been Charged with a DUI in Arizona?

If you are facing DUI charges in Arizona, it is important to have a thorough criminal defense attorney who can make sure your rights are being well protected. At The Law Office of James E. Novak, we have the skills and experience to provide a strong defense for every client, regardless of the severity or circumstances of the charges. For a free and confidential consultation, call us today at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a woman in Arizona was stopped at a red light when the car behind her crashed into her automobile from behind. The woman’s car sprung forward, and she collided with the car in front of her. When the woman got out of her car, she looked behind her and saw the defendant exiting the vehicle which had been the original catalyst of the crash. He ran away, and the woman told police officers what he looked like when they arrived at the scene.

Several witnesses were also able to provide descriptions of the defendant’s appearance, and officers soon tracked him down in a nearby neighborhood. The defendant was charged with and convicted of driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident. He promptly appealed.

more The Decision

During the trial, the defendant argued that he was not actually the person driving the car that caused the accident. The defendant explained that a woman he was dating was actually the car’s driver and that when the vehicles collided, the woman driving ran away immediately. The defendant, who had been sitting in the front seat, then climbed over the inside console and escaped through the driver’s side, which is why witnesses saw him exiting the car as if he had been the driver. According to the defendant, there was no actual evidence that he was the driver that caused the accident.

Once the defendant was arrested by police officers, passersby saw him sitting on the curb in handcuffs. It was these same passersby that then identified the defendant as the driver. This form of identification was inherently prejudicial and unfair – of course, these people would think the defendant was guilty, he argued, if they saw him sitting on the sidewalk in handcuffs. The defendant took issue with the fact that his lawyer at trial had not objected to this method of identification. Because the defense lawyer failed to make this important point, the defendant argued that his guilty verdict should be reversed.

The court examined the record and decided that even if the defendant’s attorney had objected to the method of identification, it would not have ultimately made a difference. The court cited case law providing that if an identification method is suggestive, it can still be admissible if it is otherwise reliable. Here, the identification might have been suggestive, but the defendant failed to show that the identification was unreliable. Each of the witnesses that testified against the defendant had physically seen him exit the vehicle, and thus there was ultimately no problem with the fact that they later saw him in handcuffs on the curb. With this in mind, the court concluded that the defendant’s lawyer did not deny the defendant a fair trial by failing to raise this particular objection. The defendant’s appeal was thus denied.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges in Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we understand that facing DUI charges in Arizona can be daunting. If you are fighting charges and don’t know where to turn, give our office a call. We offer aggressive, well-informed representation that prioritizes your needs and fights for your voice to be heard. For a free and confidential consultation, call us at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving his Dodge Charger when he rear-ended another car, which pushed it into a nearby wall. A witness who had witnessed the accident followed the defendant, watching him as he drove into a nearby parking lot. The witness inquired as to whether the defendant was going to check on the driver of the second car. The defendant said yes and promptly headed back to the scene of the accident.

By the time the defendant returned to the collision site, a police officer was at the scene. This officer observed that the defendant had watery and bloodshot eyes, as well as that he smelled of alcohol. Approximately one hour after the accident, the defendant submitted to a blood draw, which revealed a blood alcohol concentration of .164 percent. Around that time, the defendant admitted to the officer that he had rear-ended the second car and that he was alone in his Dodge Charger.

more The Decision

The defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated DUI and one count of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in vehicle damage. At trial, the defendant offered testimony that conflicted with his original testimony, as he claimed that his friend was driving the Charger when the accident happened and that the friend was the one who left the scene of the accident. On cross-examination, the defendant did admit that his testimony conflicted with what he told the officer on the day of the accident.

Once the defendant was found guilty of aggravated DUI, he appealed, arguing that the fact that the officer did not have his body camera turned on during the interaction was detrimental to his case. According to the defendant, the officer had failed to turn on the body camera, and the trial court should have explained to the jury that the State was in the wrong to not include video evidence of the interaction.

The court considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately decided that the defendant was not entitled to any explanation from the trial court that the State should have recorded the interaction. Even though the defendant argued that the missing recording might have validated his testimony (that his friend was the person involved in the accident), the court ruled that because an eyewitness was present to confirm that the defendant was alone, the body camera footage was indeed unnecessary.

Given this fact, the court denied the defendant’s appeal and affirmed his conviction.

Are You Facing DUI Charges in the State of Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we understand that facing DUI charges in Arizona can feel daunting. We also understand that dismissals don’t just happen – they are won. We are prepared to fight for your rights and defend what matters most to you. For a free and confidential consultation, give us a call at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving between seventy and ninety-five miles per hour in a forty-five miles per hour zone. While going at this speed, the defendant struck another car, causing the two passengers of that second car to be ejected from the vehicle. The second car’s driver was a man and the passenger was his seven-month-old son. Neither passenger was wearing a seatbelt, and the father had THC in his system at the time of the crash. Tragically, the seven-month-old son died as a result of the crash.

The father pled guilty to driving under the influence and endangerment after the crash. The main defense raised by the defendant was that he alone was not responsible for the injuries – it was true, said the defendant, that he was speeding, but the father was also under the influence and without a seatbelt at the time of the crash. Thus, according to the defendant, he could not take all of the blame.

more The Decision

The court considered this argument, that the father’s drug use and lack of a seatbelt could have also been causes of the crash. The court noted that sometimes juries receive what is called a “superseding cause” instruction. This means that the judge instructs juries to consider that another person’s actions have intervened and caused the accident in question. Occasionally, if a jury decides that this other person’s actions were a significant factor in the accident, the defendant can avoid liability.

In this case, said the higher court, a superseding cause instruction was not appropriate. The defendant’s excessive speeding occurred at the same time as the father’s failure to use a seatbelt and drug use. For the superseding cause instruction to apply, the father’s actions would have to have occurred after the defendant’s speeding. Arizona law is clear that the superseding cause instruction only applies when the two actions do not occur at the same time.

The defendant’s excessive speeding continued up to the time that the seven-month-old child was thrown from the car. Thus the speeding worked together with the lack of seatbelts to cause the injuries. Because the father’s occurred simultaneously with the speeding, the superseding cause instruction was not appropriate.

However, the court of appeals still vacated the defendant’s conviction on a more technical issue. The court disapproved of the fact that the lower court made a decision on this superseding cause instruction without first establishing whether the two actions occurred at different times or at the same time. It is necessary for Arizona courts to first determine the timeline of events before deciding if a superseding cause instruction is appropriate. Because the lower court failed to make this analysis, the higher court determined that the order should be vacated. The defendant’s appeal was thus successful.

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

If you are defending yourself against Arizona DUI charges that have resulted from a car accident, give us a call at the Law Office of James E. Novak. We know the law and remain committed to using our expertise to make sure your voice is heard. For a free consultation, call us at 480-413-1499.

The defendant in the recently decided appeal was stopped while operating a motor vehicle on I-17 in Maricopa county. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, officers smelled the odor of alcohol on the man and suspected he was driving under the influence of alcohol. After performing sobriety tests, and ultimately a chemical test showing a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, the defendant was charged with an aggravated DUI. The defendant had previously been convicted of aggravated DUI in the State of Arizona in 2006. The defendant was offered a plea agreement by prosecutors, which he rejected, and the case was taken to trial.

After a jury trial in which several witnesses testified against the defendant, he was found guilty of the aggravated DUI charges. The defendant was not sentenced immediately after his conviction; as he was instructed to return for sentencing. The defendant failed to appear for his sentencing hearing, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. After the defendant was found several months later, he was sentenced for crimes. The defendant was sentenced to two prison terms of 4.5 years, which would be served concurrently. The defendant appealed his conviction to the state court of appeals.

In response to the defendant’s appeal, the prosecutors argued two main points. First, the State claimed that the defendant waived his right to appeal by failing to appear for sentencing. Arizona law dictates that a defendant who knowingly and voluntarily fails to appear for sentencing within 90 days of their conviction gives up their right to appeal. The appellate court rejected this argument by the state, finding that the defendant did not voluntarily waive his right to appeal because he wasn’t explicitly instructed that he would lose that right if he failed to show up for sentencing. The State’s second argument was that there were no reversible issues in the appeal. The high court agreed with this, holding that the defendant’s prosecution was pursued properly and that his rights had been honored through the process. As a result of this appellate opinion, the defendant’s conviction and sentence will stand.

How to Fight an Arizona DUI Charge

If you or a loved one has been arrested or charged with a DUI offense in Arizona, the consequences of a prosecution can be significant. Although DUI laws in the state are strict, it is possible to challenge the police and prosecutors’ conduct in mounting a defense to the charges, and the worst consequences can often be avoided if the right legal strategies are employed. The experienced Arizona DUI attorneys with the Law Office of James E. Novak know how to fight an Arizona DUI charge. Our qualified criminal defense lawyers stand up for our client’s rights, regardless of the type of crime they have been charged with. If you’ve been accused of a crime, contact us and we can start helping today. To schedule a free consultation and discuss your case, call 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two cars approached the entry gate of a Target warehouse one evening in March 2018. Coincidentally arriving at the same time, the driver of the second car watched as the driver of the first car rammed his vehicle into the closed gate and squeezed into the parking lot. The gate came off its tracks and the driver of the second car immediately called 911.

When police officers arrived, they found the first car zooming around in the parking lot, and they suspected the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The officers stopped the car and found the defendant in this case at the wheel and his one-year-old daughter in the back of the car. At this point, the officers noticed that the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot; he smelled of alcohol, and his words were jumbled and slurred.

Officers brought the defendant to the police station; during the car ride, the defendant said to the officers that the Mexican Mafia was chasing him, which was why he was driving irresponsibly. At the station, the officers drew the defendant’s blood and found that his blood alcohol content was .106 and that his blood tested positive for unmetabolized THC as well as methamphetamine.

The Decision

The defendant was charged with three counts of driving under the influence. The defendant expressed his intention to accept a plea bargain with the State but asked if he could have a few days in order to put his affairs in order before admitting himself to prison. The court agreed to this request, but the defendant never showed up as he had promised to do.

A few months later, the defendant’s hearing went on without him present. The jury found him guilty on all three counts and the court found that he had three prior felony convictions. The defendant turned himself in about two years later, at which point he was sentenced to time in prison. The defendant then appealed this conviction and sentencing.

The court denied the defendant’s appeal, finding that even though he was not present at trial, it was his own decision to be absent, and thus that he would pay the price for choosing not to attend. The defendant’s attorney was present on his behalf at trial, which accounted for the fact that the defendant himself was not in attendance. For this reason, the verdict was affirmed, and the defendant was ordered to again present himself for his prison sentence.

Have You Been Charged with a DUI in Arizona?

If you are facing DUI charges in Arizona, you need the guidance of an experienced criminal defense attorney who can make sure your rights are protected. At The Law Office of James E. Novak, we offer the highest quality representation at every stage of your case, creating and implementing individualized defense strategies that work for you. For a free and confidential consultation, call us at 480-413-1499 or send us an online message to have your questions answered.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was pulled over by a police officer because a rear-mounted camera blocked one-quarter of his car’s license plate, which should have been on full display. The officer checked the license plate in his system and found that it was invalid.

During the traffic stop, the officer noticed that the defendant had bloodshot eyes and was grinding his teeth. Suspecting that the defendant had been driving under the influence, the officer conducted field sobriety tests, including asking him to walk in a straight line and to balance on one foot. The defendant could not maintain his balance and continuously fidgeted during the sobriety tests.

Following these tests, the officer arrested the defendant and asked him if he had recently consumed any methamphetamine. The defendant replied that it had been “forever” since he had used any methamphetamine. Once the officer and the defendant arrived at the police station, the defendant agreed to do a blood draw and urinary analysis. He ended up testing positive for methamphetamine.

The Decision

The defendant was charged with several crimes: aggravated driving while license is suspended, aggravated driving with a drug in the body while license is suspended, and two counts of aggravated driving while under the influence with two prior DUI convictions. At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty on all four counts of aggravated driving while under the influence of drugs.

On appeal, the defendant asked the court to review the trial procedure for any errors, requesting that the court investigate whether any decisions made during trial had unfairly affected the jury’s decision. Reviewing the record, the court found that all of the proceedings were in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant had an attorney through every stage of the litigation, and the sentences he received were within the state’s guidelines. Because there was no error in the proceedings, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentences.

Have You Been Charged with a DUI in Arizona?

If you are facing criminal charges related to a DUI in Arizona, it is important to know your options and familiarize yourself with how to protect your rights. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we understand the hard work and diligence it takes to craft a successful defense strategy. With over ten years of experience in criminal defense, we are ready to analyze all aspects of your case, and we are committed to being with you every step of the way. For a free and confidential consultation, give us a call at 480-413-1499.

The Facts of the Case

On the night of the incident, a police officer was driving on a highway and observed a vehicle stopped on an exit ramp. The defendant was the driver, and his eight-year-old son was also in the car. According to the arresting officer, the defendant stumbled while getting out of the car and spoke with slurred speech, prompting the Arizona Department of Public Safety Troopers to investigate. The troopers observed the defendant’s bloodshot watery eyes and the smell of alcohol, and the defendant’s subsequent field sobriety tests indicated he may be under the influence of alcohol. The troopers administered a blood test, revealing the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) to be 0.187, which is above the 0.08 threshold and thus indicates driving while impaired.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated DUI, which, in this case, involved driving a vehicle with a passenger under the age of 15 years old while under the influence of alcohol. The defendant appealed and argued that there was a fundamental error in the record, or in other words, errors were made that violated rights provided to him by the U.S. or Arizona constitutions or laws.

The Decision

The appellate court did not find a fundamental error because the record indicated that the lower court gave the defendant all of his constitutional and statutory rights. Additionally, the appellate court found that the court proceedings complied with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court explained that the defendant was present at all proceedings, represented by counsel at all proceedings, the jury received proper jury instructions and was properly comprised, and that there was no evidence of juror or prosecutorial misconduct. Additionally, the jury issued a unanimous verdict that, in the court’s view, was supported by the evidence.

This case highlights the heightened penalties for individuals who drive under the influence with minors in the car. Ultimately, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions of aggravated DUI.

Have You Been Charged with a DUI Offense?

If you have been charged or arrested with a DUI offense in Arizona, contact the Law Office of James E. Novak today. Attorney Novak is a dedicated criminal defense lawyer who has extensive hands-on experience handling DUI offenses, drug offenses, weapons offenses, and all serious crimes. Attorney Novak has more than 20 years of experience and is ready to help you with your case in whatever way he can. Call the Law Office of James E. Novak at 480-413-1499 today to schedule a free consultation.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, police officers received a call for people sleeping in a car. Police officers arrived on the scene, and noticed that the vehicle had been in an accident. Officers woke the passenger up without issue, but the defendant was “in and out of it,” and exhibited signs of intoxication, including slurred speech and confusion.

Police officers administered field sobriety tests, the results of which led them to believe the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Subsequently, the police arrested the defendant, who then told them that he had driven to the store to buy some food, and fell asleep after pulling over. Police ordered chemical testing of the defendant’s blood, which indicated he was under the influence of methamphetamine and amphetamine.

In a pre-trial motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that the case should be dismissed under the “stationary shelter” rule. The stationary shelter rule prohibits a person’s prosecution for DUI when they are using the vehicle as a temporary stationary shelter. The rationale behind the rule is that, when someone is resting or sleeping in a vehicle that is not running, they are not in actual physical control of the vehicle. It also incentivizes intoxicated people to pull over when they know they are a danger. Here, the defendant claimed that the prosecution was speculating that he was operating the vehicle while he was in an intoxicated state.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument, affirming his conviction. The court explained that the prosecution was not speculating about the defendant’s condition because 1.) there was video surveillance showing the truck pulling into the store’s parking lot, and 2.) the defendant admitted to having driven the car when asked by police officers. Thus, while the stationary shelter rule could apply in similar cases, the court held that it did not apply in this case.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona Drunk Driving Offense?

If you have recently been charged with an Arizona DUI crime, reach out to Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak has decades of experience representing clients charged with drunk driving offenses, and knows what it takes to mount a successful defense in these challenging cases. He understands that having a criminal case hanging over your head is incredibly stressful, and makes he makes himself available to his clients to answer any questions when they come up. To learn more, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation with Attorney Novak. Or, you can also reach our office through our online form.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer heard tires squealing and observed a car take off at a high rate of speed. The officer pulled over the car, which the defendant was driving. The officer noticed that the defendant smelled like alcohol, and arrested him, and took him to a booking facility.

Police asked the defendant to perform two sobriety tests, which he did. They then informed the defendant of his Miranda rights, at which point the defendant invoked his right to consult with an attorney. The officers explained the consequences of refusing a breath or blood test, and the defendant again insisted on having counsel present. Police officers then obtained a warrant to take the defendant’s blood, which revealed he had a blood-alcohol concentrate of .121, well over the legal limit.

Initially, the prosecutor of the defendant’s case decided not to bring charges, concerned that the police officers violated the defendant’s right to counsel. At this point, the defendant requested that the police preserve all evidence related to his arrest. After the defendant was later arrested on similar charges, a different prosecutor decided to file charges based on the first incident. However, the surveillance video of the defendant’s booking was not preserved.

The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress, arguing that the police failed to allow him to consult with counsel after he requested to do so. He also claimed that the police “violated his due process rights by failing to preserve any audio or video recordings from his arrest.”

A police officer testified that he gave the defendant ample opportunity to call an attorney. However, the defendant testified that police allowed him to call his wife, but refused to allow him to call an attorney. The trial court denied the motion, explaining that the evidence in question was not “exculpatory.” A jury convicted the defendant, and he later appealed.

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, agreeing with the lower court that the video evidence was not exculpatory and, at best, would have been useful to the defendant in his motion to suppress. The court explained that the defendant needed to show that the police or prosecutors acted in bad faith when they failed to preserve the video, which he failed to do.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Offense?

If you were recently arrested for an Arizona drunk driving offense, do not give up hope. Instead, reach out to Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a dedicated criminal defense attorney who handles all types of Arizona DUI offenses, including those involving accidents and refusals. To learn more, contact Attorney Novak at 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation. You can also reach him through the online form on his website.

The role of a prosecutor is to “seek justice.” However, as history shows, sometimes prosecutors step out of line, either by withholding valuable evidence, trying to use prejudicial evidence, or making inflammatory comments to the jury. Defense attorneys are critical in keeping prosecutors in check, by objecting to their unfair tactics.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona drunk driving case, discussing the defendants’ claims that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct. According to the court’s opinion, the defendant entered a roundabout without yielding the right of way to a police cruiser. The officer initiated a traffic stop, and the defendant sped away. The chase reached speeds of 120 miles per hour before the defendant stopped the car and got out. The officer commanded the defendant to get on the ground, and he complied, at which point he was arrested.

The officer noticed the defendant smelled of alcohol and requested he submit to a blood test, which the defendant refused. The defendant was charged with DUI.

In the prosecutor’s closing argument, he made several statements that the defendant claimed served only to prejudice him. For example, the prosecutor explained to the jury the defendant was on a “beer run” when he was pulled over. The prosecutor also cited non-expert testimony regarding how fast the defendant was driving.

The Court’s Analysis

The Court explained that prosecutors are given wide latitude when it comes to their closing arguments, and to succeed in a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show the prosecutor’s comments, 1.) “infected the trial with unfairness,” and 2.) denied the defendant of the right to a fair trial.

Here, the court reviewed each of the alleged instances of misconduct, finding that each one was either appropriate or did not rise to the level of denying the defendant his right to a fair trial. For example, while the court determined that while the comment that the defendant was on a beer run may not have been supported by the evidence, the trial court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the statement cured any risk of prejudice. The court’s opinion illustrates the high bar that a defendant must meet to succeed on these claims.

Contact a Dedicated Arizona DUI Defense Attorney

If you have been arrested for an Arizona drunk driving offense, reach out to Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. He can help defend your rights from the moment you were arrested, through trial, and appeal, if necessary. Attorney Novak has extensive experience handling all types of DUI cases, and is prepared to defend his clients against aggressive prosecutors who are only out to seek a conviction. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation with Attorney Novak, call 480-413-1499 today.

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.

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant’s parents called police after they noticed that their new truck was missing. They told the police that their son, the defendant, had been drunk earlier in the day, and that they believed he stole their truck and drove it while under the influence. Because the defendant had a prior DUI, he was required to have an ignition interlock installed on any vehicle he drove.

Not long after speaking with the defendant’s parents, police officers located the truck with the defendant asleep inside. The truck’s lights were on, but the engine was off, and the keys were not in the ignition. Police woke the defendant up, who told them that the keys were “where they were supposed to be.” However, the defendant did not elaborate, and the officers never found the keys.

Police officers took a sample of the defendant’s blood, which revealed his blood-alcohol content was nearly four times the legal limit. The defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted of several DUI offenses.

On appeal, the defendant argued that he could not be found guilty of driving under the influence because he did not have the keys, and the keys were never found.

The Appellate Court’s Opinion

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions. The court began its analysis by noting that state law requires the prosecution to show that a defendant was either driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating substances. However, the discovery of an ignition key is not imperative. The court explained that, even in situations where the defendant no longer has control over the vehicle, “if it can be shown that such person drove while intoxicated to reach the place where he or she was found, the evidence will support a judgment of guilt.”

Thus, the court concluded that, although the defendant was not in actual control of the vehicle at the time police discovered him asleep behind the wheel, because he must have driven drunk to get to where he was found, he could be found guilty of DUI.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Offense?

If you have recently been charged with a DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a veteran Tempe DUI defense attorney with decades of experience litigating all types of drunk driving cases – from first-time offenses to Extreme DUIs. As a former prosecutor, Attorney Novak understands how the other side sees these cases and uses this knowledge to effectively craft a defense for each of his clients. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend your freedom from the allegations you face and to schedule a free consultation today, call 480-413-1499.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, at around 2 a.m., an officer was on patrol in an area that was known as a road used by drunk drivers. The officer noticed the defendant pass by, traveling about 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. The officer noted no other traffic infraction.

When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed the defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot, and the car smelled of alcohol. The defendant admitted to having something to drink, but explained that he was not feeling the effects of the alcohol. The defendant understood all the officer’s questions and responded in a clear manner. However, the officer then performed a horizontal nystagmus test to determine if the defendant was intoxicated or tired.

After noticing that the defendant’s eyes did not smoothly track, the officer asked the defendant out of the vehicle and performed additional field sobriety tests, culminating in a breath test. After the results of the breath test indicated that the defendant’s blood-alcohol content was over the legal limit, the officer arrested the defendant.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that at the time the officer asked the defendant to get out of the car, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was impaired by alcohol. The defendant focused on the distinction between having a little to drink and then driving, which is legal, and driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit. The defendant claimed, at most, the officer had a reasonable suspicion that he had consumed alcohol, but not that he was impaired.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument, finding that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, the officer’s decision to remove the defendant from the vehicle was justified. The court relied on the following facts:

• the time of night;
• the location of the traffic stop;
• the car was speeding;
• the defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot;
• the odor of alcohol coming from the car;
• the defendant’s admission to consuming alcohol earlier that evening;
• the result of the horizontal nystagmus test

The court found that all these factors, when considered together, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was intoxicated.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you recently were arrested and charged with an Arizona drunk driving offense, contact attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Police officers routinely make mistakes that can result in the inadmissibility of evidence, making it impossible for prosecutors to prove their case. Attorney Novak is a respected Tempe DUI defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of DUI offenses, including first-time DUI arrests. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation to meet with Attorney Novak and discuss your case, call 480-413-1499 today.

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer was on routine duty when he noticed a vehicle pulled over to the side of Interstate 10, with its flashers on and with the rear of the vehicle protruding into the roadway. As the officer approached the car, he could see that the driver was asleep and that there was a child unbuckled in the back seat. The officer opened the door and found an open can of beer, and the remains of a twelve-pack. The car was off, but the key was in the ignition, the car was in drive, and the hood was warm.

When the officer asked the defendant to get out of the car, he noticed that the defendant was unsteady and had bloodshot, watery eyes. The defendant told the officer he was not driving the car and that he “just pulled over.” A chemical test revealed that the defendant was intoxicated, and he was then arrested and charged with drunk driving.

At trial, the defendant conceded that he was intoxicated, but argued that there was insufficient evidence for the judge to find that he was in “actual physical control” of the car. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for acquittal, and the defendant was convicted.

On appeal, the defendant again argued that there was insufficient evidence establishing he was in physical control of the car. The court began its analysis by noting that a defendant is in actual physical control of a vehicle when “under the totality of the facts, the person posed a threat to the public by the exercise of present or imminent control” over a vehicle while impaired.” The court went on to explain that relevant facts include whether the engine is running, the driver’s position inside the car, and the location of the car.

Here, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction. The court noted that the defendant was found sleeping in a car that was partially obstructing the road with the keys in the ignition. The court also pointed out that the hood of the vehicle was warm and that the car was in drive.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Offense

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a well-respected and knowledgeable Arizona criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of Arizona DUI offenses. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the allegations you are facing, call 480-413-1499 today.

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.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI case discussing a process called “retrograde extrapolation” by which a chemist can estimate what a person’s BAC was at a specific time by looking at what their BAC was at a later time. The process is used by prosecutors to estimate what a defendant’s BAC would be at the time they were driving. Prosecutors will especially rely on this technique when they were unable to take a defendant’s blood within the two-hour time frame

According to the court’s opinion, witnesses observed the defendant get into a car accident between 4 and 6 p.m. After the accident, the witnesses noticed that the defendant smelled of alcohol and seemed off balance. Police officers arrived on the scene at 8 p.m, and the defendant’s blood was taken at 9 p.m. The results indicated that the defendant’s BAC was .336. Because the defendant’s blood was not taken until between three to five hours after the accident, prosecutors called an expert witness to explain the concept of retrograde extrapolation, and provide the jury an estimate of the defendant’s BAC at the time of the accident.

The defendant was ultimately found guilty, and appealed the admissibility of the retrograde extrapolation evidence. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the evidence was not relevant because the specific statute he was charged with violating did not require proof of a certain BAC, and only required the prosecution to show that he was generally impaired.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument, finding that the retrograde extrapolation evidence was relevant to the question as to whether the defendant was under the influence at the time of the accident. The court noted that law provides that, once the prosecution provides evidence that a motorist had a BAC of more than .08, there is a presumption that the motorist was intoxicated. Here, the court held that the evidence was relevant because it helped establish that the defendant’s BAC was over .08 at the time he was driving.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Offense?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a veteran Tempe DUI defense attorney with extensive experience defending clients against all types of DUI charges. He is both a skilled litigator and negotiator, which helps him consistently obtain favorable results for his clients. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation to discuss your case with Attorney Novak, call 480-413-1499 today.

One of the most common questions is whether a police officer can require a motorist to give their blood for a blood test. The short answer is no, however, the question is really more complicated. By obtaining an Arizona driver’s license, motorists agree to consent to blood testing at the request of police. This is referred to as implied consent. However, police officers cannot physically require a person to submit to a blood test.

Thus, under Arizona DUI law, all motorists agree to undergo testing at the request of police. However, if a motorist refuses testing, the police cannot physically force them to give blood. The only way that police can physically force a suspect to give blood is if they obtain a warrant. However, in practice, warrants are rarely obtained in DUI cases.

A recent state appellate decision illustrates the procedures police may follow if a driver is unwilling to consent to a blood draw and they decide to obtain a warrant. It is important to keep in mind that an officer must establish that there is probable cause for a DUI arrest before they can obtain a warrant.

According to the court’s opinion, an officer pulled over the defendant for several traffic violations. Upon interacting with the defendant, the officer noticed his speech was slurred and he seemed intoxicated. The officer noted that the defendant had “bloodshot, watery eyes,” and a strong “odor of intoxicants” coming from him. The officer also noticed that the defendant’s 13-year-old daughter was in the passenger seat.

The defendant refused to consent to a blood draw, so the officer obtained a warrant. However, the defendant continued to resist, telling the officer “you are not going to take my blood,” as he clenched his fists. The defendant’s conduct, along with the fact that he had “hard veins” resulted in several nurses unsuccessfully trying to take his blood. Eventually, the defendant’s blood was taken, indicating he was under the influence. The defendant appealed his conviction based on the numerous failed attempts to take his blood, but the court affirmed his conviction because the failed attempts were not due to the nurse’s mistake, but the defendant’s conduct and his “hard veins” were the result of intravenous drug use.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested for an Arizona DUI, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a knowledgeable Tempe DUI attorney with extensive experience handling all types of DUI offenses. 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:

• Mitchell v. Wisconsin
• Birchfield v. North Dakota

According to the court’s opinion, a state trooper stopped the defendant for following too closely and failing to stay within his lane. While the trooper was interacting with the defendant, he noticed a smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath, and that the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot. When asked, the defendant admitted to having two drinks, and also that his license was in suspension.

The trooper asked the defendant to get out of the car and performed a series of field sobriety tests. Ultimately, the trooper concluded that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and arrested him for DUI. Another trooper arrived on the scene, and the two discussed bringing the defendant into the station for a breath test. During this conversation, the defendant called for medical assistance because he was having a heart attack and a seizure.

The troopers placed the defendant in one of their cars and transported him to the hospital. At the hospital, nurses took the defendant’s blood for medical purposes. The troopers then obtained a sample of the defendant’s blood so that they could test it for alcohol. As it turns out, the defendant’s blood indicated that his blood-alcohol content (BAC) was .17, more than twice the legal limit.

The state charged the defendant with four counts related to his arrest:

1. Aggravated driving with a BAC of 0.08 or more with a suspended license;
2. Aggravated driving while impaired to the slightest degree with a suspended license;
3. Driving while impaired to the slightest degree; and
4. Driving while under the extreme influence of intoxicating liquor with a BAC of 0.15 or more but less than 0.20.

A jury convicted the defendant, and the court sentenced him accordingly. The defendant appealed his convictions, arguing that Double Jeopardy precluded several of the convictions. Ultimately, the court agreed that the defendant could not be guilty of count three if he were found guilty on count two. The court reasoned that these two counts shared all the same elements, with count two requiring the additional fact that the defendant’s license was suspended. Thus, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction on count three, but otherwise affirmed the verdict.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If the state recently charged you with an Arizona DUI offense, you need an effective advocate to stand up for your rights and fight on your behalf. At the Tempe DUI defense practice of James E. Novak, we represent clients who face all types of Arizona DUI crimes, including first-time DUIs and extreme DUIs. To learn more about how we can help you defend against the allegations against you, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. 28-1381 – DUI Laws
• A.R.S. 28-1382 –Extreme DUI Laws
• Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution