Articles Posted in Criminal Defense

Arizona prosecutions for domestic violence and sexual assault cases often hinge on whether the victim can have the suspect admit to criminal behavior while law enforcement is recording the interaction. A recent judicial opinion in Arizona sheds light on the use of these recorded “confrontation calls” in criminal cases, emphasizing the need for individuals to be aware of their rights during such encounters.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published judicial opinion, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress statements made during a confrontation call between the defendant and his stepdaughter organized by the Avondale Police Department. The defendant faced molestation charges involving his step-granddaughters, and the confrontation call with the victim’s mother became a pivotal point in the legal proceedings. The court’s decision centered on the admissibility of the defendant’s statements during the recorded call, addressing concerns of coercion and voluntariness.

A confrontation call is a strategy employed by law enforcement to obtain statements from a suspect through a recorded phone conversation. In Arizona, such calls can be recorded with the consent of just one party involved, providing a legal framework for their use. In the recent case, the confrontation call aimed to gather his perspective on the alleged incidents and assess the admissibility of his statements.

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked for a reversal of his guilty conviction of stalking. The defendant had been charged and convicted after a period of nine days during which he repeatedly showed up at the victim’s house and vandalized his property. When the defendant appealed, he argued that the victim was actually acting as an officer of the state when the defendant got arrested, and the lower court was wrong not to recognize this fact during the defendant’s trial. Looking at his appeal, the higher court disagreed and ended up affirming the original conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant drove by the victim’s house several times over the course of nine days, each time slowing down to monitor what was happening on the property. The defendant also dumped trash in the yard and slashed the victim’s tires.

Tired of the stalking behavior, the victim decided to confront the defendant during a drive-by. The victim was a justice of the peace in a local Arizona county and therefore had a gun at his disposal, and when the defendant got out of his car and started moving towards the victim, the victim fired a shot to the ground as a warning. Within a few minutes, police officers were on the scene, and they arrested the defendant.

A jury found the defendant guilty of one count of stalking, and the court sentenced him to 1.5 years in prison. He appealed.

Continue reading

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked for his guilty conviction to be reversed because of an error committed by the trial court. Originally, the defendant was charged with and convicted of armed robbery. After his trial, the defendant asked for a reversal because, he argued, the lower court had failed to sufficiently inform him of his rights at several of his hearings. Ultimately, the court of appeals determined that while the lower court had failed to properly advise the defendant of certain rights, this fact did not warrant a reversal. The court kept the original conviction in place.

Facts of the Case

The defendant was arrested in connection with a series of incidents in which a man wearing a clown mask approached individuals, pointed a gun at them, and robbed them. After several months of this particular kind of armed robbery popping up throughout the area, investigators were able to link the defendant in this case to the crime. He was criminally charged, and his case headed for trial.

Before trial, the defendant went to court for several suppression hearings or hearings in which he tried to get certain incriminating evidence suppressed before the trial began. At these hearings, the defendant opted to represent himself, even though he was offered an attorney. He brought in several witnesses for each of the hearings, and his motions to suppress were denied at each hearing.

Continue reading