Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

Sometimes, appeals courts are called upon to determine if a trial court made a “fundamental, prejudicial error” during trial. In certain circumstances, when the higher court finds that the lower court made this kind of critical error, the higher court will vacate the defendant’s guilty conviction. It is crucial, then, to understand what “prejudicial error” means during criminal court proceedings. That way, if you think the court has committed a prejudicial error against you during your case, you can move forward with potential grounds to get your guilty conviction thrown out.

Definition of “Prejudicial”

According to Arizona case law, to show prejudicial error, a defendant must show that without one particular error, a reasonable jury could have “plausibly and intelligently returned a different verdict.” Essentially, this means that a defendant must show that if the court had not committed the error in question, it would have been reasonable for the jury to find him not guilty.

Considerations During Review

In reviewing a trial court’s record for prejudicial error, the higher court will consider the other evidence presented at trial. For example, in a recent case before the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, the defendant argued that it was prejudicial for the court to allow testimony regarding the fact that he was carrying a “Santa Muerte card” while stopped for suspected drug trafficking. Many drug dealers are known to carry this card, and the defendant argued that the testimony about the card made the jury believe that he was, indeed, trafficking drugs just because he was holding the card.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the defendant asked the court to reconsider the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress. The defendant was originally charged with transporting a narcotic drug for sale, and he filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence that he felt a police officer unfairly obtained. On appeal, however, the higher court disagreed with the defendant and ended up affirming the lower court’s ruling.

Facts of the Case

In the opinion, the court recounted the following facts: a detective was on patrol early one morning on the interstate when he noticed a car in his vicinity drift across the white “fog line” two times. He initiated a traffic stop, and he approached the driver and his passenger, who ended up being the defendant in this case.

The detective noticed several things about the defendant. His hands were shaky, his body was trembling, and he continuously licked his lips during the conversation. Because of the detective’s 15 years of experience in the field, he suspected that the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The detective conducted a field sobriety test and, soon after, found several boxes in the car with “bulk drugs” for transport.

Continue reading →

In a June 2023 case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, the defendant argued that his conviction for the sale or transportation of dangerous drugs should be reversed. According to the defendant, the trial court’s use of his drug dealer as a witness during the seven-day trial was inappropriate, and the conviction should therefore be vacated. The court carefully reviewed the defendant’s argument, but it eventually disagreed and affirmed the guilty conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and his adult son participated in an exchange of methamphetamine with their dealer, a woman they had worked with in the past. The drug deal took place in the dealer’s car, but once the dealer’s supplier joined the group, the deal went awry. Police officers came to the scene, and the defendant and his son both fled. Officers caught up to the defendant, arrested him, and later interrogated him regarding the series of events. The defendant pled not guilty to the offense, telling the officers that he had given the dealer money for “something”, not for anything related to drugs.

The defendant’s case went to trial, and the dealer testified for the State under an immunity agreement. She confirmed that she had worked with the defendant and that they were, indeed, exchanging methamphetamine on the day in question.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his guilty conviction for producing marijuana. Originally, the defendant was criminally charged after police officers searched his house in response to a 911 emergency call. On appeal, the defendant argued the search was warrantless, and, thus that the evidence officers found against him was illegally obtained. The higher court, considering this argument, ruled that the officers were allowed to search the defendant’s property without a warrant, given the officers’ concern that there was a potential emergency that needed their attention. The defendant’s appeal was subsequently denied.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers involved in this case received an emergency call from 911 one evening while on patrol. The person on the other end of the phone yelled, “help!” and the officers were able to immediately trace the call to the defendant’s address. Concerned for the caller’s safety, the officers quickly drove to the defendant’s address.

When the officers arrived, they tried to enter onto the property but were blocked by a fence. Receiving no response to their warnings, the officers decided to jump the fence to enter the property. The officers jumped over the fence and did not immediately see any emergency, but instead smelled marijuana growing on the property. They noticed a marijuana grow tent, as well as a sleeping man lying on a cot with a rifle nearby. The officers left the property and obtained a search warrant, later returning to the home and finding growing marijuana plants as well as drug paraphernalia.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, the defendant argued against his conviction for the possession or use of dangerous drugs. On appeal, the defendant argued that the two officers that found drugs on his person infringed on his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Looking at the evidence, the court ultimately disagreed with the defendant and affirmed the guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two police officers were patrolling early one morning when they noticed a grey van circling an empty parking lot. The van’s driver then drove out of the parking lot and took an illegal turn, at which point the officers activated the car’s siren to conduct a traffic stop. The van stopped, and the officers approached the vehicle.

One of the officers immediately noticed a tied-off, plastic bag under the console. It was clear to the officer, based on his years of experience in the field, that the white, crystalized substance inside the bag was methamphetamine. The officers arrested the defendant and found methamphetamine, marijuana, and a glass pipe in his pockets. The defendant was charged with possession or use of dangerous drugs.

Continue reading →

Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors have used wiretaps and other electronic surveillance methods to gather evidence of criminal activity for over a century. The privacy issues involved in listening in on the conversations of private citizens invoke constitutional protections that have been addressed by both Arizona and Federal courts. The Arizona Court of Appeals recently affirmed a defendant’s conviction for drug trafficking offenses, rejecting his contention that the wiretap evidence used to convict him was obtained in violation of federal law.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant had been a suspect in an ongoing drug trafficking investigation. In 2016, the Maricopa County attorney’s office submitted a request for wiretap authorization to the superior court, which was granted. Based on the evidence obtained by listening to the defendant’s phone conversations, he was arrested and charged with several drug trafficking offenses. Before trial, the defendant’s attorney attempted to suppress the wiretap evidence, arguing that a recently decided federal court case set the standards for wiretap applications, and the one submitted in the defendant’s case was not up to the standard

The federal law concerning wiretap applications was recently clarified by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Arizona. The 9th Circuit determined that a valid application for a wiretap must be signed off by the “principle prosecuting attorney” for the jurisdiction where the wiretap is requested. The application, in this case, was signed off by a deputy district attorney, not the principal prosecuting attorney for Maricopa County.

In a recent opinion coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant argued that the trial court made an error in determining the scope of her original convictions and sentences. Originally, the defendant was charged and convicted of several drug-related charges after a police officer found methamphetamine on her person in a routine traffic stop. Four of the convictions revolved specifically around the defendant’s possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, the defendant argued that these convictions for drug paraphernalia should have been merged into a single conviction, and she should not have been tried for four separate crimes. The court of appeals ended up agreeing with the defendant, and it modified the trial court’s decision to reflect only one conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was pulled over one evening in 2018 for a traffic violation. The police officer conducting the traffic stop quickly suspected that the defendant had been drinking, and he arrested and searched her to confirm his suspicions. During the search, the officer found methamphetamine in the defendant’s clothing.

Once the defendant arrived at the station, she told officers that she routinely dealt drugs and that she had drugs at her residence. Officers searched her home and found marijuana, methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and a gun. She was charged with several crimes, including two counts of possession of dangerous drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana for sale. She was subsequently found guilty at trial.

Continue reading →

In a recent Arizona drug case, the court was tasked with deciding whether or not juries are required to unanimously agree on what type of drug a defendant used when issuing a guilty verdict for certain drug crimes. After considering the arguments on both sides, the court decided that a jury must unanimously identify the specific kind of drug when convicting a defendant for possession of drug paraphernalia or sale of narcotic drugs.

Facts of the Case

In this case, three different defendants were charged with drug crimes, and because their cases were all substantially similar, the court combined their three cases into one. The defendants were all U.S. residents who had come from Mexico, and they all had legal status in the States. One of the defendants was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia, and the remaining defendants were convicted of possession of a narcotic drug for sale.

Because the defendants were not originally from the U.S., their charges had different consequences than they would if they were all born in the States. For some criminal offenses, judges can impose immigration consequences on defendants as a form of punishment. In this case, the immigration court ordered that the three men be removed from the country, telling them that they had to return to Mexico because of their drug convictions. The defendants appealed.

Continue reading →

In a recent opinion from an Arizona court, the defendant’s appeal of his marijuana conviction was denied. The defendant had been found guilty of transporting marijuana for sale, and he made multiple arguments in his attempt to reverse this original conviction, including an argument that the incriminating evidence used against him should have been suppressed. The court, however, disagreed with the defendant’s arguments and affirmed his original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving alone in his SUV when two State Troopers pulled him over for speeding. The troopers found two bundles of marijuana in the SUV that weighed approximately 46 pounds. At first, the defendant told the troopers he knew nothing about the marijuana, saying that he had recently lent the car to a friend. Later, though, the defendant admitted that he knew about the marijuana but did not know specifically that it was in his car.

A jury trial was conducted. The jury found the defendant guilty of transportation of marijuana for sale, and he was sentenced to time in prison as a result.

Continue reading →