Articles Posted in Violent Crimes

In a criminal case revolving around homicide or murder, it is a long-standing rule in Arizona that photos of the victim’s body are automatically relevant to the proceedings. This rule can be harmful for defendants in these cases, especially in jury trials where jury members will be jarred or emotionally distraught by the photos. In a recent murder case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the defendant tried to fight the trial court’s decision to admit photos of an autopsy in his case. His argument ultimately failed, and the higher court reminded him that the photos were automatically relevant because they showed the victim’s body after the murder.

Facts of the Case

The defendant in this case faced criminal charges after an incident outside of a bar one evening. The defendant engaged in a rap battle with another person, which turned violent. The second person removed his shirt and started to approach the defendant. The defendant then immediately pulled out a gun and fired shots in the second person’s direction, hitting him in the face and torso. Paramedics quickly came to the scene but were ultimately unable to resuscitate the individual. The next day, the defendant, who had fled the scene, turned himself into the police.

The State charged the defendant with second-degree murder, and his case went to trial. As part of the proceedings before the trial court, the prosecution introduced photographs of the decedent’s body. At the time, the defendant did not object, but he later argued that the photographs were inappropriately admitted into evidence. The court denied this argument, and the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The court sentenced the defendant to time in prison.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Facing criminal charges can be an arduous journey, and the prospect of a successful appeal post-conviction can be even more challenging. In a recent Arizona case, the defendant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and related charges. This blog post explores the difficulties encountered in pursuing a criminal appeal after a conviction.

According to the facts discussed in the recently decided appellate opinion, the defendant was charged with aggravated assault, endangerment, disorderly conduct with a weapon, and misconduct involving weapons after an incident in June 2021 when he allegedly fired shots inside a crowded bar, injuring two patrons. The defendant was convicted after seven-day jury trial. Despite raising several issues in his appellate brief, the court, after careful review, found no error in the proceedings.

Forensic Testing

The defendant argued that insufficient forensic testing and a potential misidentification warranted a reversal of his conviction. However, the court emphasized the sufficiency of evidence presented during the trial, including eyewitness accounts and video surveillance, corroborating the bouncers’ testimony.

Credibility of Witnesses

The defendant challenged the credibility of various witnesses, a common tactic in appeals. However, the court reiterated that witness credibility is a matter for the jury to decide during trial, and the defendant had the opportunity to impeach witnesses during proceedings.

Continue reading

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

Facts of the Case

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

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

Continue reading

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

Facts of the Case

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

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

Continue reading

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

Facts of the Case

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

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

Continue reading

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

Facts of the Case

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

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

Continue reading

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

Facts of the Case

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

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

Continue reading