Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Many people assume that if someone threatens them, they can defend themselves later on. Arizona law, however, draws a clear line. The right to use force only applies when the threat is immediate. A recent aggravated assault case from the Arizona Court of Appeals illustrates the importance of timing. Once a person leaves the scene and then comes back to confront the same individual, the law no longer treats that conduct as self-defense.

The case stemmed from an argument that began inside a bar in Mohave County. Tensions escalated, and after exchanging words with another patron, the accused left the scene. He returned minutes later and confronted the same individual in the parking lot. A fight broke out, and prosecutors later charged him with aggravated assault, pointing to the presence of a knife during the confrontation. At trial, he asserted that he acted in self-defense, arguing that prior threats from the other individual justified his response. The jury disagreed, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. The court found that by leaving and later returning to the scene, the immediacy required for a justification defense no longer applied. Arizona courts tend to interpret use-of-force claims narrowly, focusing heavily on whether the response was immediate and necessary under the circumstances presented at trial.

Understanding Arizona’s Justification Statute

If you are charged with a serious crime decades after it allegedly occurred, you may wonder how law enforcement identified you. In Arizona, courts allow DNA hits from government databases to be used in connecting people to cold cases. While this evidence can be robust, it also raises concerns about prejudice, assumptions, and whether it implies a history of criminal activity. In a recent ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that DNA evidence from a database may be introduced at trial if it is relevant and not unduly prejudicial.

In State v. Vergara, the person on trial was charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. These charges stemmed from an incident that took place nearly 30 years before law enforcement made an arrest. The charges came after a DNA profile submitted to a database produced a match. At trial, the defense objected to the use of any testimony suggesting the DNA came from a criminal database, arguing that it implied a prior record and prejudiced the jury. The trial court allowed the testimony, and the appeals court upheld that decision.

DNA Hits Can Be Used to Explain How Police Identify Suspects

The appeals court emphasized that prosecutors may explain how law enforcement came to suspect someone, especially when a long time has passed since the alleged offense. In this case, the match between DNA evidence from the original crime scene and a DNA profile in a database helped explain the investigative process. The court ruled that the testimony helped rebut the theory that officers had unfairly targeted the wrong person without justification.

Continue reading →

In serious felony trials in Arizona, the issue of what evidence is admitted or excluded can make all the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. The rules governing evidence are complex, and while they are bound by laws, the admission of evidence often involves a great deal of discretion by the judge. This process can be much messier than it appears, and even seemingly minor errors can have significant consequences.

A recent case involving a defendant convicted of first-degree murder highlights the importance of proper evidence handling and the challenges of appealing a conviction based on improper evidence admission. The defendant in this case appealed his conviction, arguing that certain evidence should not have been presented to the jury. The case underscores the critical role that skilled criminal defense attorneys play in ensuring a fair trial and preserving the right to appeal.

The case began with a tragic incident in which the defendant and a co-defendant traveled from Las Vegas to Scottsdale armed with a handgun and a makeshift silencer. They visited a home under the guise of delivering a gift basket and poinsettia plant. When the victim opened the door, the co-defendant forced his way inside and attacked her. The defendant, waiting nearby, shot and killed the victim before attempting to shoot others in the home.

Violent crimes can be tricky to litigate and to defend in court. One source of recent conversation in the Arizona criminal legal sphere has been the crime of aggravated assault, and whether hurting multiple people through one assault counts as multiple crimes or only one crime. The answer to this question matters because, in general, the more charges a person faces, the more convictions he might have on his record and the more time he might spend in jail or prison. Recently, an Arizona court addressed this question as it relates to one person firing one shot that then hits and injures multiple people.

Victim-Driven v. Conduct Driven Offenses

If, during the course of committing a violent crime, a defendant fires one gunshot and injures multiple people from that one shot, the defendant is still eligible to face multiple convictions of assault. As an Arizona court explained in its recent ruling, assault is known as a “victim-driven offense” as opposed to a “conduct-driven offense.” For a conduct-driven offense, a person firing one shot might be eligible for only one conviction, no matter how many people are injured. For a victim-driven offense, though, it matters how many individuals were harmed by the shot when the State decides how many charges to bring against the defendant.

Recently, a defendant in Arizona was found guilty of six counts of first-degree murder. He appealed his convictions, arguing in part that one of the jurors in his trial had external knowledge of a previous crime that he had committed. According to the defendant on appeal, this knowledge prejudiced the juror against him, and the trial court should have granted his request for a mistrial. The higher court reviewed the trial record and ultimately disagreed, finding that the juror credibly stated she did not remember that the defendant had been accused of another crime several years prior.

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.1

Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 24.1, a court may order a new trial either on the defendant’s motion or with the defendant’s consent. The defendant in this case moved for a new trial under this rule, arguing that one juror intentionally hid the fact that she knew the defendant was convicted of a previous murder. The trial court denied the defendant’s request, concluding that 1) the defendant did not show that the juror failed to disclose any knowledge and 2) regardless, the defendant failed to show any prejudice that resulted from the possible knowledge.

The defendant appealed. In the higher court’s opinion addressing the appeal, it noted that the juror testified that she knew about the previous murder, but she also indicated that she did not remember that the defendant in the case before her had been convicted of that murder. The court found this testimony to be credible; that is, it found it reasonable that the trial court relied on the juror’s testimony when deciding not to grant the defendant a mistrial.

Continue reading →