Phoenix DUI Law Blog

July 26, 2022

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

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.

July 18, 2022

Know Your Rights: Implied Consent and Blood Alcohol Tests in Arizona

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

At The Law Office of James E. Novak, we too often speak with clients in Arizona who are not fully aware of their rights when they get pulled over for a suspected DUI or DWI. Part of our job as defense attorneys is to ensure that you are well prepared for any interaction with law enforcement that might come your way, especially when laws change and the legal landscape can be difficult to track. If you are ever pulled over for alleged drunk driving, know that you have rights and that you are not automatically subject to unfair policies or procedures.

Considerations of Refusing a Breath Test

You can be found guilty of driving while intoxicated if your blood alcohol concentration is found to be at least .08 percent. For those driving under 21, however, any alcohol concentration at all found can lead to a license suspension. For officers to determine your blood alcohol concentration, they often conduct blood, breath, or urine tests to measure the amount of alcohol or drugs present in your bloodstream.

A police officer cannot legally require you to take one of these tests if that officer does not have probable cause to believe you have been drinking. This means that if an officer witnesses suspicious driving (for example, swerving, running a stop sign, or failing to use proper signals), that officer might have reason to pull you over and tell you that you are required to take a test measuring your blood alcohol concentration.

June 26, 2022

Arizona Court Affirms Motion to Dismiss in DUI Case, Siding with Defendant

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

In a recent DUI case coming out of an Arizona court, the state unsuccessfully argued that the defendant’s motion to dismiss should not have been affirmed. On appeal, the higher court confirmed that the defendant had no reasonable way of knowing that he was required to have an ignition interlock system installed on his vehicle.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was originally convicted in June 2012 of one count of driving under the influence and one count of possession of marijuana. In 2012, Arizona law included a provision that required DUI offenders to install an ignition interlock device in their cars for one year upon having their licenses reinstated. By 2016, that provision had been changed, and it began to only apply to DUI convictions involving intoxicating liquor.

The defendant’s license was reinstated in 2017, one year after this relevant change to the law. Confusingly, the defendant’s Motor Vehicle Department record continued to state that he was required to install this ignition interlock device. In 2018, when he was stopped and charged with two counts of aggravated DUI, both charges were based on the fact that the defendant was intoxicated while he was required to have an ignition interlock device.

May 26, 2022

Arizona Defendant in Aggravated DUI Case Loses Appeal

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

In a recent DUI case coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant’s appeal of his guilty conviction was unsuccessful. The defendant had originally pointed out on appeal that the police officer who arrested him did not have his body camera turned on, and he argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury as to the officer’s error. The higher court concluded that the jury instruction was ultimately unnecessary and that the defendant’s conviction should be affirmed.

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.

May 10, 2022

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

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

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.

April 23, 2022

DUI Stops and Testing on the Road in Arizona: Know Your Rights

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

Too often, our clients come to us concerned because of charges resulting from a DUI stop. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we know and understand how frightening it is to get pulled over, and that when alcohol is involved, the stakes are high. It is thus crucial to know your rights when you are on the road so that you can be prepared if and when you see the flashing blue lights behind you.

Probable Cause

The first thing to know is that if an officer pulls you over and asks you to perform a breathalyzer test, they must have probable cause to suspect that you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This means that officers cannot ask you to perform a sobriety test without some indication that you are not sober (the exception to this rule would be if the officers are conducting a DUI checkpoint and you were randomly selected to conduct a test as part of this checkpoint).

Anything that you say or do could be used against you in order for the officer to find probable cause to breathalyze you, test your urine, or test your blood. For example, if you are swerving on the road or if (after the traffic stop) your speech is impaired, the officer will likely have legal grounds to request that you take a sobriety test. In Arizona, it is illegal to drive with a blood alcohol count (BAC) of .08% or higher, but officers can still arrest you if your BAC is lower than .08% and if their perception is that you are “impaired to the slightest degree.” For example, if your BAC is .07% but you are slurring your words when you speak to the officer, that officer can still arrest you under suspicion of a DUI.

April 8, 2022

Arizona Defendant Successfully Appeals Manslaughter Conviction

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

In a recent case coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant successfully appealed his convictions following a car accident at least partially caused by his speeding. The defendant was originally charged with and convicted of manslaughter, aggravated assault, and criminal damage. Because of his appeal and the facts surrounding the accident, the higher court vacated the trial court’s original decision.

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.

March 25, 2022

Arizona Court of Appeals Affirms Defendant’s Second DUI Conviction.

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

The State of Arizona takes DUI and related offenses extremely seriously. First-time offenders are often required to serve jail time, and subsequent offenders can face substantial prison sentences. With each successive DUI, the punishment becomes exponentially more severe, making it extremely important for persons accused of DUI to obtain competent legal counsel. The Arizona Court of Appeals recently addressed a defendant’s appeal of his DUI conviction, which was for a second offense and resulted in a prison sentence of 4.5 years.

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.

March 17, 2022

Arizona Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Blood Draw After Deadly Crash

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

In a recent case coming out of a criminal court in Arizona, the defendant appealed his convictions for negligent homicide, endangerment, criminal damage, and aggravated assault. Facing several different guilty convictions, the defendant made multiple arguments on appeal, one of which was that the trial court should not have denied his original motion to suppress incriminating evidence. The higher court considered the defendant’s appeal but ultimately disagreed with him and affirmed his original convictions and sentences.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving his truck one evening when he collided with another vehicle, leading that car to launch into the air and land on another person’s car. One person was killed in the crash. After the crash, investigators drew blood from the defendant three times and found each time that his blood alcohol level was significantly above the .08 concentration, which serves as the threshold number for a person to be charged with driving under the influence.

After a jury trial, the defendant was sentenced to prison terms totaling 13.5 years. He promptly appealed his convictions and sentences.

February 28, 2022

Why It’s Important to Understand DUI Stops, Even if You Weren’t Drinking

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

Nobody likes getting pulled over by the police, even when you haven’t done anything wrong. However, it’s easy to assume that, if you haven’t been drinking, you have nothing to worry about. That isn’t the case, as a recent Arizona appellate opinion illustrates.

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was riding as a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence. When the officer approached the vehicle asking about whether there are any weapons in the car, the defendant replied that there were none. However, as the officer shined a flashlight through the vehicle’s windows, he saw a shotgun barrel.

When confronted with the fact that there was a weapon in the car, the defendant told the officer that he meant to mention the shotgun, but he forgot. When asked, the defendant admitted that he handled the gun, that he was on felony probation, and that he knew he was prohibited from handling a weapon. The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 12 years in jail.