Violent Crimes

August 31, 2023

Arizona Court Agrees with Defendant in Aggravated Assault Case, Protecting the Right to Remain Silent During Interrogation

An Arizona appellate court’s July 2023 decision in an assault case highlights the importance of safeguarding the defendant’s right to remain silent during interrogation. In this case, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and endangerment. A police officer interrogated the defendant, and he declined to answer several of her questions. Later, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the crimes. He promptly appealed, and the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving by his old apartment building when he saw an acquaintance walking on the sidewalk. The defendant and the acquaintance exchanged some words, and the defendant pulled out a gun and fired several shots at the acquaintance. Police arrived at the scene and arrested the defendant.

Officers took the defendant to the station, where they read him his Miranda rights and asked a series of questions. At several points during the 30-minute interview, the defendant stated that he wanted to “pass” on the question and avoid answering for the time being. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty of aggravated assault and endangerment.

August 17, 2023

Arizona Court Re-Examines Use of GPS Data in Murder Case

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

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.

May 31, 2023

Arizona Defendant in Negligent Homicide Case Appeals Based on Error in Jury Instructions

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

In a recent negligent homicide case in Arizona, the defendant appealed the guilty verdict he received after a jury found him responsible for the death of a second driver while he was on the road. The criminal charges stemmed from an indecent in which the defendant’s car crashed into a second car, tragically killing the second car’s driver. The defendant was found guilty at trial, and he appealed. Reviewing the case, the higher court affirmed the original ruling and sustained the defendant’s guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening in a 40-mph zone when he approached an intersection going 70 miles per hour. A second car turned left in front of the defendant, and the defendant crashed into the second car. After the driver’s death, the State charged the defendant with one count of negligent homicide. The defendant’s case then went to trial.

The Decision

At trial, the jury had to evaluate whether the defendant was guilty, and if he was guilty, whether he should be convicted of manslaughter or of a lesser offense, negligent homicide. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty of negligent homicide, but he promptly appealed the conviction.

February 28, 2023

Arizona Court of Appeals Denies Defendant’s Request for New Trial in Assault Case

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

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to grant him a new trial after he received a guilty verdict. Originally, the defendant was charged with and convicted of aggravated assault. After his four-day trial, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, but the lower court denied his motion. He promptly appealed, arguing that the trial court unfairly denied his request.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two individuals were delivering food to a friend’s home one evening when the defendant abruptly approached and struck one of the individuals twice with a machete. After the attack, the defendant took off running. Officers searched for the defendant diligently, and they were eventually able to track him down and charge him with the crime.

In the meantime, the man who was attacked suffered severe injuries from the machete. He underwent surgery on his hand and his thigh, and he lost the ability to complete the physical aspects of his job. He also became dependent on others to help him use the bathroom, clean himself, and generally assist him in completing day-to-day tasks.

February 10, 2023

Arizona Defendant in Sexual Assault Case Successfully Argues for Reversal of Conviction and Sentence

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

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his convictions and sentences for sexual conduct with a minor. Originally, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 51 years in prison after he molested three children; however, the defendant was between the ages of 10 and 12 when he committed the crime. On appeal, then, the court found that the defendant was too young to have been prosecuted as an adult, and it ultimately vacated the convictions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was a child when his mother took him every week to the house of the children she babysat. Over the course of several years, the defendant engaged in sexual acts with the three kids in the household without the kids’ consent.

Approximately ten years later, the kids told their mother about the incidents. At that point, the defendant was 23 years old, and the State charged him with sexual conduct with a minor and child molestation. The case went to trial, and the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. He was then sentenced to 51 years in prison.