Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

Sex crimes can be tough crimes to fight, but having an understanding of the different offenses can be helpful when you are up against the state of Arizona. Today, we review some basics of “luring,” which is a lesser known but severe criminal offense.

Definition of Luring

In Arizona, “luring a minor for sexual exploitation” means that a suspect offers sexual conduct when he or she knows or has reason to know that the other person is a minor. Luring is a class 3 felony, and there are harsher punishments if the minor is under fifteen years old.

Interestingly, a defendant in a luring case cannot offer the defense that the other person was not, in fact, a minor. For example, oftentimes, investigators suspect an individual of luring and pretend to be a minor on an internet platform. The investigators themselves are over 18 years of age, but the person committing the luring believes the investigators are different people, i.e. that they are minors themselves. Even though the investigators are not actually minors, this does not matter for the criminal offense: all that matters is that the suspect has reason to know that the second individual was a minor.

Continue reading →

In the U.S. generally and in Arizona specifically, every defendant has the right to be free from prosecution for the same offense multiple times. Sometimes, it is easy for a court to determine when a case violates this right. Other times, it is not so straightforward. In a recent case before the Arizona Supreme Court, it was unclear whether the defendant’s three separate convictions should have been prosecuted one conviction instead. The court ultimately used the nature of the offense to determine that the criminal activity should have been taken as one offense instead of three separate offenses. This was a victory for the defendant, whose sentence will be reduced as a result.

Facts of the Case

In the case before the Arizona Supreme Court, investigators began a conversation with the defendant after he posted ads on a website designed to facilitate sexual encounters. The investigators posed as a thirteen-year-old girl, and the defendant promptly began sending explicit messages to the “girl.” The two individuals arranged a meet up. During the three days between when the pair arranged the meet up and the date of the meet up, the defendant and the “girl” exchanged approximately 1,000 text messages, many of them very explicit in nature.

When the defendant arrived at the agreed-upon place, police officers arrested him. The State charged him with three counts of luring a minor under the age of fifteen for sexual exploitation. A jury found the defendant guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty-one years in prison. This sentence was based on three distinct violations of Arizona law, given that the defendant sent explicit and luring messages on three separate days leading up to the supposed meet-up.

Continue reading →

In a recent opinion issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, the court overturned a defendant’s convictions for sexual conduct with a minor and indecent exposure to a minor. The opinion highlights the fact that trial courts must make a careful decision when one party requests to close the courtroom during trial. In this case, the State asked to keep nonessential people outside of the courtroom while the victim in the case testified. On appeal, the defendant argued that this decision to close the courtroom was unconstitutional, and ultimately, the higher court agreed.

Proceedings Before the Lower Court

The defendant was originally criminally charged after the victim, the daughter of his girlfriend, came forward and indicated that he had been sexually assaulting her for several years. According to the victim, the defendant was in charge of looking after her while her mother worked overtime, and it was during these instances that he would force her to have sex with him.

The defendant’s case went to trial, and the victim took the stand to testify. Court records indicate that the girl was 16 at the time of trial and that she was very nervous about testifying. A few minutes into her testimony, the State asked the trial court judge if he would close the courtroom and tell all “nonessential” individuals to leave the proceedings. The defense objected, but the trial judge decided to close the courtroom in order to give the victim some privacy.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, the defendant appealed his convictions and sentences stemming from a series of sexual assaults. On appeal, the defendant argued that because he committed the offenses when he was a minor, the superior court did not actually have the authority to hear his case, given that the case should have been heard in a juvenile court. Considering the defendant’s argument, the court ultimately denied the appeal but remanded the case back to the lower court for re-sentencing.

Offenses at Issue

In this case, the defendant sexually assaulted and abused three younger children between 2006 and 2008. At the time he committed the crimes, the defendant himself was a minor. The State learned about the offenses after the defendant turned 18 and he was charged with two counts of sexual conduct with a minor and three counts of child molestation.

Facing criminal charges, especially those related to sex crimes, is a daunting experience. If you or a loved one is seeking the services of a criminal defense attorney in Arizona, understanding the complexities of the legal landscape is crucial. In a recent judicial opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals discussed the admission of prior bad acts evidence in a sex crime prosecution as a key issue. Whether a prosecutor is allowed to submit evidence to a jury that unfairly prejudices a defendant is often the defining factor in a case.

In the recently decided case, the defendant was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age. The victim had been adopted into the defendant’s family, creating a step-sibling relationship with the defendant. The case hinged on the State’s allegations of emotional harm suffered by the victim as an aggravating circumstance. In support of their case, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of prior bad acts committed by Fichtelman against another victim who was sexually abused at the age of 11. The court’s decision to admit this evidence became a pivotal point in the trial.

A critical aspect of the case was the admission of other acts into evidence related to the defendant’s prior misconduct with the other victim. The court’s decision to allow this evidence, highlights the delicate balance between relevance and potential prejudice. The Court narrowed their ruling, limiting the evidence to one prior conviction and excluding certain details, allowing the court to remain committed to offering the defendant a fair trial.

In a recent sexual abuse case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant argued that his conviction should be reversed because of evidence that was unreasonably admitted during his trial. The defendant was originally charged after a client at his massage therapy business alleged that he inappropriately touched her during their massage session. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty. The defendant went on to appeal the decision, but the higher court ultimately affirmed the guilty conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant worked as a massage therapist at a local business. A woman came in for a massage, and during the massage, the defendant began touching her inappropriately with both his hands and his genitalia. The woman left the massage room and called 911 to report the incident.

The defendant was charged with two counts of sexual abuse. His case went to trial, and he was found guilty. The defendant promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before an Arizona criminal court, the defendant asked for the court to overturn a conviction for sexual assault and voyeurism, arguing that one charge was brought against him too late after the offense occurred. Reviewing the defendant’s argument, the higher court ultimately denied his request, ruling he had not raised the issue early enough to benefit from the relevant statute of limitations.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was indicted in 2019 for sexual assault and voyeurism against several victims. The offenses occurred in 2008, 2015, 2017, and 2018. In each of the instances, the victim came forward and alleged that the defendant either raped, assaulted, or recorded her in a promiscuous setting without her consent.

Before the defendant’s case went to trial, he asked the Court to hold a separate trial for the 2008 incident because it was so far apart from the other incidents. The superior court denied the defendant’s request, and the trial moved forward.

The Decision

A jury found the defendant guilty of sexual assault and voyeurism against seven different women. The court sentenced him to several decades in prison, and the defendant appealed. On appeal, the defendant’s main argument was that the 2008 offense should have been barred because of the statute of limitations. In Arizona, the State generally has seven years to initiate prosecution for sexual assault felonies. Here, said the defendant, more than seven years passed, and the State should not have been able to charge him with the crime over ten years later.

Continue reading →

Last month, a defendant involved in a sexual assault case appealed his convictions of kidnapping, sexual assault, and sexual conduct with a minor. Originally, the State of Arizona had brought charges against him for incidents with four different victims under the age of 18. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was convicted and sentenced as charged. On appeal, the defendant made several arguments, one of which was that the prosecutor unfairly played to the jury’s emotions during the trial. Looking at the trial record, the court of appeals ultimately affirmed the original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with incidents of sexual assault that happened in 1992, 1995, 1999, and 2004. The minors in each case had reported to law enforcement that the defendant had either kidnapped, raped, or otherwise assaulted them, but law enforcement failed to properly investigate the cases.

Finally, in 2018, law enforcement reopened each of the four cases. By that point, cold-case testing had led officers to believe that the defendant was the person guilty of all four crimes. Police called the four victims and asked if they would come to testify in the defendant’s trial.

Continue reading →

Last month, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on a defendant’s appeal in a sexual assault case. After a lengthy trial in the lower court, the defendant was found guilty of sexually assaulting his minor niece. On appeal, the defendant made several arguments, arguing the guilty verdict was unfounded and should be reversed. The court of appeals kept the guilty verdict in place, rejecting the defendant’s contentions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the victim in this case was a minor who would sometimes stay over at her cousin’s house for the evening. One night, she slept over with her cousin, sharing a room but sleeping in her own bed. During the night, her uncle, the defendant, came into the room to soothe his daughter, the victim’s cousin. The defendant was responding to his daughter’s cries, and he originally came in to make sure she was sleeping soundly. After checking on his daughter, the defendant allegedly got into bed with the victim and sexually assaulted her.

The next day, the victim told her family members what had happened. She was taken to the hospital for forensic testing, and the defendant was charged with sexual conduct with a minor. At trial, a jury found the defendant guilty and he was eventually sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of release after 35 years.

Continue reading →

In a recent appeals court opinion in an Arizona child sex crimes case, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed his convictions and sentences for ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, class two felonies, and dangerous crimes against children. In the appeal, the defendant argued that his motions to suppress evidence were improperly denied by the trial court. The appeals court affirmed the trial court decision, finding that the files searched by law enforcement did not need to be limited to the certain files named by the defendant and that there was probable cause for the search of the defendant’s desktop computer. Subsequently, the appeals court ruled that the defendant did not show that the denial of his motion to suppress was not an abuse of discretion.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, in February of 2015, the Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce (ICAC) obtained some downloads of child pornography from an internet protocol (“IP”) address that used a peer-to-peer network program called Torrent. After further investigation, a detective of the ICAC learned that the IP address was assigned to a residence in Mesa, AZ. The detective then obtained a search warrant for the home in question.

A search of the home did not produce evidence of illegal activity, but when officers asked the homeowner whether anyone else had access to his home’s secured Wi-Fi connection, he explained that his cousin, the defendant, had stayed with him in February of 2015. The detective then orchestrated a call between the homeowner and the defendant. On the call, the defendant claimed that a virus on his computer had downloaded the illegal images and he had not deleted them as he should have.

Continue reading →