Articles Posted in Criminal Defense

Published on:

By

Just standing near a crime is not a crime. But a recent Arizona Court of Appeals ruling shows that the so-called “mere presence” defense has real limits — and that the standard burglary jury instructions may already cover it. The Law Office of James E. Novak defends burglary and theft cases across Maricopa County, and this decision shapes how those defenses play out in court. Learn more about your Arizona criminal defense options.

What Did the Arizona Court of Appeals Decide?

In State v. Aguirre, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0338, decided April 22, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed a third-degree burglary conviction out of Maricopa County Superior Court. The defendant was caught on a Phoenix parking garage roof with two other men. One had a crowbar. Another had a bolt cutter. Cut copper wire was strewn nearby. He told officers he was hired to be a “lookout.”

On appeal, he argued the trial judge should have given the jury a “mere presence” instruction on its own — even though the defense never asked for one. The court rejected that argument and affirmed his 10-year prison sentence as a repeat offender.

The court held that when jurors are properly told the State must prove specific intent under A.R.S. § 13-1506 and A.R.S. § 13-301 (accomplice liability), a separate mere presence instruction is arguably redundant. No prior Arizona case has ever found this kind of omission to be fundamental error.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

If you have a criminal case in Phoenix, the pretrial conference is usually the first court date where your case can move in a meaningful way. The Law Office of James E. Novak uses this hearing to force clarity on the evidence, lock in deadlines, and position the case for dismissal, reduction, or trial-ready motion practice. In Arizona, a prosecutor still must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the pretrial conference is where a good defense starts pressing that burden with structure.

Why This Hearing Matters More Than People Expect

Most people picture court as “trial or no trial.” Pretrial is where the real work happens. In Maricopa County, the judge uses this hearing to confirm where the case stands and to set the schedule that controls what happens next. Your defense uses it to expose weak proof, demand missing discovery, and tee up motions that can limit or exclude evidence.

In Arizona, a pretrial conference is not just a status check. In Phoenix, it is a leverage moment because it forces the state to show how ready it really is. A prosecutor still must prove admissibility before a jury can hear statements or see seized evidence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

When you face a criminal charge in Arizona, the pretrial conference can shape everything that follows. You use this court date to lock down discovery, set motion schedules, and position your case for either a better offer or a cleaner trial. The Law Office of James E. Novak helps you treat this hearing as a strategic opportunity that protects your rights from day one.

What a Pretrial Conference Is Under Arizona Rules

A pretrial conference is a court proceeding in which the judge reviews case progress, confirms discovery, and sets the path forward. You attend with your lawyer, you address disclosure under the rules, you confirm pending motions, and you discuss whether resolution makes sense. Arizona’s Rules of Criminal Procedure define these steps, and you gain leverage when you arrive prepared to hold the State to those requirements. You should view this hearing as a focused check on real progress rather than a routine calendar call.

Tasks To Complete Before Your Pretrial Conference

You strengthen your position when you complete a thorough disclosure audit and a focused motion plan. You verify that police reports, body camera files, 911 audio, dispatch logs, lab packets, calibration records, and chain of custody documents are all produced and legible. You confirm that phone extractions, social media captures, and surveillance clips are preserved in original formats with the necessary metadata. You insist on full compliance with Arizona disclosure duties before you consider any proposal from the State. You work with your lawyer to draft targeted motions that address suppression, late disclosure, unreliable testing, and improper opinion testimony so the court can set firm hearing dates. You arrive at the conference with written evidence requests, a witness list that notes availability issues, and subpoenas ready for service if needed. You also prepare a negotiation range that reflects provable facts, likely evidentiary rulings, and realistic sentencing exposure rather than fear or guesswork. You walk in organized, you put gaps on the record, and you create momentum that carries into motions, plea discussions, and trial preparation.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Resisting arrest is a serious criminal charge in Arizona that can carry lasting consequences, even if you believe the arrest itself was unjustified. Prosecutors often file this charge alongside other offenses like disorderly conduct, DUI, or assault. Understanding how Arizona law defines resisting arrest can help you avoid making your situation worse and may even help you beat the charge entirely.

If you are facing this accusation, you need to take the situation seriously. A conviction can result in jail time, a criminal record, and problems with employment or licensing. Working with a criminal defense attorney early in the process gives you the best chance to protect your rights and challenge weak or exaggerated claims by law enforcement.

Arizona’s Resisting Arrest Law Explained

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In the United States, the standard of proof required to prevail in legal actions varies depending on the type of case. Criminal cases are held to the highest standard: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt to such a degree that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational person. This standard is much stricter than the preponderance of the evidence standard used in civil cases, which only requires that a fact is more likely true than not, or the clear and convincing evidence standard, which falls somewhere in between. Jurors in criminal trials are explicitly instructed to apply this rigorous standard, as it is a cornerstone of the justice system designed to protect the rights of the accused. However, even with these instructions, misunderstandings or misapplications of the standard can occur, as seen in a recent Arizona appellate case involving a man convicted of drug trafficking crimes.

The case began when a man was pulled over for speeding on an Arizona interstate. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed inconsistencies in the man’s story about his travel plans and the identity of his passenger. The officer eventually asked for consent to search the vehicle, which the man initially refused. However, after further questioning and the arrival of a K-9 unit, the man consented to the search. The search revealed a significant quantity of methamphetamine and fentanyl in luggage found in the car. The man was arrested and charged with transportation of dangerous drugs for sale and transportation of narcotic drugs for sale. At trial, the man testified that he had no knowledge of the drugs and claimed he was unaware of the luggage’s contents. Despite his testimony, the jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to prison. He later appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecutor had misstated the reasonable doubt standard during closing arguments.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecutor’s use of the phrase “reasonable likelihood” instead of the legally required “real possibility” language in the jury instructions had misled the jury about the burden of proof. The appellate court acknowledged the importance of the reasonable doubt standard and the need for precise language when explaining it to jurors. However, the court found that the defendant had not preserved this issue for appeal because his trial counsel had failed to object to the prosecutor’s statements at the time. As a result, the court reviewed the issue for fundamental error, which is a much higher bar to clear. The court ultimately concluded that even if the prosecutor’s phrasing was incorrect, the error was not prejudicial because the jury had been properly instructed on the reasonable doubt standard both verbally and in writing. The defendant’s conviction was upheld, and he will be required to serve his sentence.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant challenged his guilty verdict based on the trial court’s definition of the word “education.” The case centered on the defendant’s insistence that his scattering dead body parts in public areas was not a crime, but instead was an attempt to educate the public. The jury disagreed, and the higher court ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case worked for a body donation center in Washington. He moved to Arizona, and he decided to take several human body parts along with him when he moved. Oddly, the man then scattered the body parts in the Arizona desert. This was important, the defendant later claimed, because he needed to educate passersby on public safety issues. He did not, however, offer a coherent statement about how the body parts would achieve his stated purpose.

Pedestrians found the body parts, and investigators traced them back to the defendant’s previous place of work, which they then back to the defendant himself. The defendant was charged with abandonment and concealment of a dead body. He pled not guilty, but a jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 2.5 years in prison. He promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a case before an Arizona court of appeals last month, the defendant asked the court to overturn his conviction for disorderly conduct. The defendant was originally charged after a road rage incident that ended with him pulling out his gun to threaten the driver of another car. The case went to trial, and the defendant was found guilty of disorderly conduct. On appeal, the defendant argued he had an unfair trial because the police failed to save his wife’s 911 call from the day of the incident. Ultimately disagreeing with the defendant, the higher court affirmed the guilty conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving with his wife when he and another car got into a road rage incident. The cars began trying to cut each other off, and the defendant got in front of the other car to begin tapping his brakes in an attempt to ward the second car off.

Eventually, the cars slammed on their brakes. The defendant got out of the car with a gun in his hand. The second car’s driver would later testify that the defendant pointed the gun in his direction, while the defendant would testify that he did not point the gun but instead just made it clear to the second driver that he had a gun in his possession.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, a mother asked the court to review the sentence that a lower court handed to her in 2022. Originally, the mother was criminally charged with negligent child abuse in 2006. After a trial in which she was found guilty as charged, the mother was not seen for another 14 years, despite the court’s issuing a warrant for her arrest. In 2022, however, she suddenly filed to quash the warrant in her case. The lower court handed out a sentence despite this request, the mother appealed, and the higher court had to decide whether it agreed with the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the mother was charged after a police officer pulled her over as she was driving on the highway in November 2005. The officer talked to the mother and found out she was under the influence of marijuana while her minor child was in the car. In January of the next year, she was indicted on one count of child abuse for putting her child in a dangerous situation.

The case went to trial, but the mother did not appear because she could not travel to Arizona for the proceedings. After two days, however, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The resulting arrest warrant stayed pending between the trial in 2006 and 2022 when the mother suddenly asked the court to quash the warrant.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recently, an Arizona court issued an opinion in an aggravated assault case following the defendant’s challenge of the jury selection. The defendant raised a challenge alleging that the opposing party excluded certain individuals because of their race. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision in denying the defendant’s challenge.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, parties of an upcoming trial were selecting individuals to serve on the jury. The defendant challenged the jury selection, requesting that the prosecutor explain why they chose to remove the only two Black individuals from serving on the jury. The prosecutor explained that they struck one individual from serving on the jury because that individual’s brother was convicted of a crime, which they worried could impact the individual’s ability to judge fairly. The second person was removed from the jury selection pool because that individual was previously involved in a criminal case. The trial court found that these were reasonable and race-neutral justifications and thus that the challenge raised by the defendant should be denied.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, courts are dealing with many novel legal issues. One of those issues is how to conduct Arizona criminal trials in a time of social distancing. Thus far, there is no consensus on how to effectively hold a trial while protecting a defendant’s constitutional rights, however, some courts are considering allowing witnesses to testify through the use of two-way video calls.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This is referred to as the Confrontation Clause. Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has issued several important opinions discussing a defendant’s right to confront their accusers. However, this issue seems more salient than ever, and will likely come before the Court again.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a case that, while not dealing specifically with the complications presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrates the issue quite clearly. In that case, a defendant faced sexual assault charges stemming from an incident in 1996. At the time, a rape kit was performed, however, it was not analyzed until 2015. The results of the testing tied the defendant to the crime.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
Law Office of James Novak, PLLC
4500 S Lakeshore Dr #352
Tempe, AZ 85282
Phone: (480) 413-1499Text: (602) 908-8123

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2017 – 2026, The Law Office of James E. Novak
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design