Published on:

handcuffsIn a recent Arizona assault case, a man appealed after being convicted of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, shoplifting, and not giving the police a truthful name when he was lawfully detained. The case arose when two cops responded to a department store’s call about a shoplifting suspect who refused to cooperate. When asked why he was causing trouble, the defendant told the cops he was “trouble” and wouldn’t give them his name. He called himself a chief, clenched his fists, and held his hands up in a gesture of wanting to fight. The cops told him he had to give his name under the law, but he refused.

He also wouldn’t comply with his arrest and wouldn’t put his hands behind his back. When the cops took his wrists, he jerked away and fled for the door. He threw a punch. Eventually a cop had to taser him, and then the other cop could cuff him. The surveillance cameras recorded their fight.

Before the trial began, the defendant made a motion to compel disclosure of several contacts with two police officers whom the prosecutor had identified would testify about their opinions. One expert didn’t testify at trial, but the other did. The defendant asked for an email from the prosecutor that asked the expert who didn’t testify to produce a supplemental report on the use of force. With regard to the expert who would testify at trial, the defendant asked for an email from the police to the expert that would ask him to create a supplemental report. The court denied the defendant’s motion for these documents and other emails between the prosecutor and expert witness on the ground that they were work product.

Continue reading →

Published on:

drug signIn a recent Arizona appellate case, a defendant appealed from his conviction and sentences for possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was arrested in 2014 after being found in possession of meth in a plastic bag. The police had responded to a call about a suspicious man going into yards and knocking on doors. The man was reported to be Hispanic and in his 30s.

The defendant matched the description of a 911 call and was located a short distance away behind a retaining wall on private property. He identified himself, and the officer asked if he had anything he wasn’t supposed to have, like drugs or guns. He answered yes and was ordered to stop and place his hands on his head. He took his hand out of his pocket. The officer saw a plastic baggie sticking out. When he took it out, he saw it held a substance that looked like meth.

The meth was in the baggie, which was also in another baggie. He was arrested and searched, and the officers found a plastic baggie that held syringes. He claimed this was for insulin for a medical condition, which he stated wasn’t diabetes. He was indicted for possessing a dangerous drug (a violation of A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1), (B)) and for possession of drug paraphernalia (a violation of A.R.S. § 13-3415(A), (F)(2)).

Continue reading →

Published on:

syringeIn a recent appellate case based on an Arizona drug crime prosecution, an Arizona Court of Appeals considered a conviction for possession of a dangerous drug. A police officer had been conducting surveillance on a residence when a blue car approached. The car’s passenger entered the home and then went back to the car two times. Each time, he was carrying something in his hands. Another officer followed him after he left the home, and he stopped the car for a traffic violation.

The officer got identification from the driver of the car and a passenger. He checked for warrants, and there were none. Other officers came to the scene, and one of the officer’s drug detection dogs conducted a sniff of the outside of the car.

The officers asked the driver and the passenger to get out of the car. The officer asked the passenger if he had weapons. When the officer conducted a pat-down of the passenger’s waist to make sure he didn’t have weapons, the passenger ran away. He took off his jacket and dropped it while running. The officer followed and arrested him.

Continue reading →

Published on:

stop signIn a recent unpublished Arizona DUI decision, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, DUI, and extreme DUI. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for the murder charge. His DUI sentence was suspended, and he was put on two five-year probation terms set to start after he served his prison sentence.

The case arose shortly after 2:00 a.m. in 2014 when the defendant drove his car at between 73 mph and 93 mph into the back of the victim’s car at an intersection where the speed limit was 35 mph and there was a stop sign, which caused the victim to die of multiple blunt force injuries. The defendant had been drinking vodka at his friend’s apartment about a mile from the accident, and he couldn’t remember what happened between drinking the first drink and sitting at the accident scene.

The officer who was dispatched saw that the defendant was flushed with watery eyes and that his breath smelled like alcohol. Several officers saw six out of six cues on a field sobriety test, and when they told the defendant he would be charged with second-degree murder, he laughed and said okay. His alcohol level was tested three times and averaged .223.

Continue reading →

Published on:

baseballIn a recent, unpublished Arizona appellate case, a woman was convicted of disorderly conduct and misdemeanor criminal damage. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, and the longer term was 2.25 years.

According to the prosecution, the case arose when the defendant met the father of her child in a parking lot to give him their child. When the father drove up with a woman, the defendant smashed in a window of the car and hit the woman in the face. When the woman got out of the car, the defendant hit her again. The prosecution claimed that she’d committed a dangerous offense in that she’d threatened to discharge or shown a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. A detective testified to the grand jury that the defendant had swung a baseball bat to break the window and then swung the bat at the victim’s arm. The defendant told detectives that the victim had gotten out of the car and threatened her, and this was the reason she got the bat.

At trial, the defendant objected to a jury instruction that stated aggravated assault was based on a reasonable apprehension of assault. Ultimately, the court allowed the prosecution to move forward under theories of assault and reasonable apprehension of assault, but it didn’t give the preliminary jury instruction. It reasoned that if someone were in the car, and somebody broke the window of the car, the person inside the car would be in reasonable apprehension of being hurt.

Continue reading →

Published on:

phoneIn a recent Arizona appellate case, the defendant appealed his conviction for domestic violence, dangerous offenses, Class 3 felonies, and two counts of aggravated assault. He argued that it was a mistake for the court to admit a 911 call recorded by a victim.

The case arose in 2014 when the defendant got involved in a domestic violence quarrel with his wife. He pointed a gun at her and her mother. The mother called 911, and during the call they discussed what was happening. The mother said her daughter’s husband was threatening them with a gun that he’d just put down during her visit. The mother couldn’t be found to testify at trial.

The defendant tried to preclude evidence of the 911 recording on the grounds that it was made to a law enforcement officer and was used to prove past events that would be relevant to a later criminal prosecution. The lower court denied the defendant’s motion in limine and found that the 911 call could be admitted under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay evidence under Arizona Rules of Evidence 803(2). The court found the mother’s comments weren’t testimonial for the purposes of the Confrontation Clause.

Continue reading →

Published on:

bag of airIn a recent Arizona appellate case, the defendant appealed his conviction for the sale of methamphetamine, a class 2 felony under A.R.S. section 13-3407(A)(2), as well as possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, and endangerment, a class 6 felony.

He argued that there was not enough evidence to convict him on the meth sale charge. Specifically, the police hadn’t found meth on him or inside his car, and his fingerprints weren’t found on plastic bags containing meth. The prosecution hadn’t presented any evidence showing that he possessed meth for sale. Ordinarily, this is evidence like cash, a scale, or a ledger.

The appellate court disagreed, explaining that the prosecution had presented quite a bit of evidence that he did possess meth and drug paraphernalia. The defendant had not stopped during a traffic stop, causing detectives to pursue him until he crashed. After crashing, he got out of the car and fled from the officers. One chased by foot, and the other chased by car. They witnessed him throw an object away like a baseball.

Continue reading →

Published on:

police carIn a recent unpublished opinion, an Arizona woman appealed convictions for aggravated assault and resisting arrest. The case arose when a deputy sheriff was patrolling and was dispatched to a domestic violence incident. When he got there, he saw two kids outside the defendant’s home, and one was emotional. The kid told the deputy what was happening inside, so he approached the home. He heard a man yelling inside the house and saw the defendant sitting on a couch inside.

He knocked on the door and made eye contact with the defendant. She didn’t open the door, so he knocked some more. She let him into the house but immediately shoved him against the wall. He told her to stop, but she said she wouldn’t stop. He took her to the ground to get control, and she punched him numerous times in the arms and legs. He took out his Taser, and then she stopped resisting. The deputy’s finger was cut.

The woman was arrested for disorderly conduct and aggravated assault in violation of multiple code sections, including A.R.S. section 13-1204 and resisting arrest. The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and resisting arrest, which are class 6 felonies. Her sentences were suspended, and she was placed on supervised probation for 18 months. The convictions were designated as class 1 misdemeanors, and she had to pay certain assessments.

Continue reading →

Published on:

cannabisIn a recent appellate decision, an Arizona man appealed from a lower court’s ruling affirming DHS’ order that revoked his caregiver registration card under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 through 2810 (“AMMA“). The reason for the revocation was that the man had committed an excluded felony offense back in 2005 and was not eligible to be a designated caregiver under the statute.

The case arose in 2005 when the man pled guilty to possessing cocaine for sale, which was a class 2 felony. His sentence was suspended, he was fined, and he was put on probation for five years. He completed probation and paid the fine, and he was discharged from probation in 2008.

However, after that, he tried to have his 2005 conviction set aside under A.R.S. § 13-907. These motions were denied, and he tried again in 2012. but the superior court denied the motions. He tried again in February 2012. In two months, the court granted the application and formally set aside the judgment. The order also restored his civil rights except the right to possess or carry a firearm.

Continue reading →

Published on:

mountain bikeAn unpublished Arizona appellate decision considered an identity theft, theft, and fraudulent schemes case. The charges arose after a high-end mountain bike was stolen from a home in 2010 and then sold on Craigslist. At trial, the defense attorney stated that the mountain bike the defendant sold wasn’t the bike stolen from the home, as made plain by the difference in serial numbers.

The defense attorney cross-examined the buyer of the bike. The buyer’s wife gave the police officer a piece of paper on which she’d put two numbers that the victim of the theft said were on his bike. One of these numbers matched the bike the buyer bought. The buyer’s wife had kept the paper for three years without turning it over to the police until a few weeks before trial. The first the defense counsel and prosecutor heard of it was during the cross-examination.

The court asked the parties if they wanted a mistrial due to the surprise. The defense attorney initially said that one way to deal with what happened was a mistrial, but he was clear that he would rather go to trial with the same jury. The prosecutor suggested empaneling a new jury or precluding any more evidence about the scrap of paper. The defense attorney also stated that he wouldn’t move to strike the surprise testimony because he didn’t want to call attention to it, and if a mistrial were deemed necessary, he would ask for a dismissal with prejudice.

Continue reading →