Articles Posted in Vehicular Crimes

Published on:

By

Have you been stopped by a police officer and charged with a DUI? Are you looking to contest the test results that the State wants to use against you? In Arizona, there are several options for challenging DUI test results; depending on your set of circumstances, each strategy has a different likelihood of success. To learn more or to see which method(s) would work for you, contact a Phoenix DUI attorney as soon as possible to discuss next steps in your case.

What is the Difference Between Each Test?

A breathalyzer is a device that officers use to track your blood alcohol content (BAC) based on each breath you take. A blood test, similarly, can detect a person’s BAC. The blood test can find alcohol in a person’s blood for up to 12 hours after drinking. A field sobriety test occurs when a police officer asks an individual to complete physical and mental tasks to determine if the person is intoxicated (i.e., standing on one leg, walking and turning).

Method 1: Challenge the Testing Procedure

The first method you might be able to use to challenge the results of a breath, blood, or field sobriety test is challenging the actual testing procedure. Officers do not always follow the correct testing procedures when stopping individuals for a breath, blood, or field sobriety test. It might be the case, for example, that the officer’s testing kit had expired, that your blood sample was not labeled correctly, or that the officer failed to use the precise proportion of chemicals when compiling the test.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, the defendant asked the higher court to reconsider his convictions for theft and unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. The defendant was originally found guilty after he stole a truck and tried to escape from the officers who found him several miles from the truck owner’s home. On appeal, the higher court reviewed the trial record and found no error in the lower court’s proceedings. The court affirmed the convictions and kept the defendant’s sentences in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the owner of a 2005 Dodge Ram came home one evening to notice that his truck had been stolen from his driveway. The man had previously put a Lo-Jack system in his truck, which allowed him to track the vehicle if it were ever stolen. He activated the system and gave the relevant information to the police with the hopes of eventually finding the vehicle.

Soon, officers located the vehicle at a nearby convenience store. They went to the store and found the car by a gas tank. The defendant was in the front of the car, and the defendant’s cousin was filling one of the tires up with air. When an officer approached the truck with a gun drawn, the defendant pulled away and drove off. Officers followed the defendant to his home.

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

An area of criminal law that ordinary Americans are most familiar with involves Miranda rights. A defendant’s Miranda rights are protected by the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from forcing anyone to testify against themselves or be coerced into making incriminating statements to law enforcement officers. Generally speaking, the law requires police officers to verbally give Miranda warnings before questioning a defendant who has been taken into custody. If a police officer obtains a confession from an in-custody suspect without giving the proper Miranda warnings first, the confession can be kept out of court. These protections are not absolute, however, as evidenced by a recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision that affirmed a defendant’s conviction even though police obtained statements from him in violation of Miranda.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was riding an unregistered motorcycle when police attempted to stop him. The defendant attempted to flee the pursuing officers when he crashed his motorcycle into a wall and was apprehended. Shortly after the crash, the defendant told the police that he didn’t stop because he didn’t want the motorcycle to be impounded. The defendant was arrested and charged with unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. During later questioning, the defendant was given his Miranda rights and again confessed to the crime of fleeing from the police.

Before trial, the defendant’s counsel attempted to suppress his statements to police, arguing that the defendant was in custody after the crash and that he was questioned by police without hearing his Miranda rights, and the violation warranted the evidence’s suppression. The trial court ruled against the defendant and ultimately convicted him as charged. The defendant appealed the ruling to the Arizona Court of Appeals, pressing the Miranda issue further.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In a recent opinion from an Arizona court, a defendant who resisted arrest lost his appeal. The defendant was found guilty of resisting arrest and theft of a vehicle, and he appealed, arguing the jury could not make a proper decision in his case because the language of the judge’s instructions to the jury was incorrect. The court disagreed, ultimately denying the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an Arizona state trooper was checking license plate numbers of vehicles in a hotel parking lot to try and figure out if any of the cars had been stolen. While patrolling, the trooper noticed a car with an “abnormally large” temporary registration. He ran the registration through the system and learned that it was associated with a fake vehicle identification number. Looking inside the vehicle, the trooper noticed that the car’s actual identification number was inside and that its ignition system’s shroud had been completely removed. The trooper then confirmed that the car had been stolen.

Later, detectives saw the defendant walking back and forth between the hotel and the vehicle, loading items into the car. When the defendant was inside the car, officers began to follow him. Once it became clear the officers were trying to stop and arrest the defendant, he got out of the car and began running. Officers chased the defendant on foot, and several officers detained him after he tried to jump over a fence. At one point, detectives had the defendant pinned to the ground, and the defendant continued to fight them until finally allowing them to put him in handcuffs. The defendant was later charged with resisting arrest and theft of means of transportation.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona assault by vehicle case discussing the defendant’s challenger to certain videos he took on his cell phone before the incident leading up to his arrest. Ultimately, the court determined that the videos were admissible, rejecting the defendant’s issues on appeal.

The Facts of the Case

In this appeal, the defendant was charged with two separate, but similar offenses. First, in 2012, the defendant was charged with various crimes after he intentionally caused a head-on collision with another driver. In that case, the other driver was seriously injured and had to learn to walk again. The following year, the defendant caused another car accident, this time, by grabbing the wheel and jerking it as his partner was driving. His partner died as a result of the injuries she sustained in the accident. The defendant was charged with aggravated assault, one count of manslaughter, and two counts of endangerment. The defendant was tried by jury and convicted. He appealed on several issues.

One of the defendant’s appellate issues pertained to the admission of a YouTube video the defendant previously recorded. Evidently, before trial, the prosecution presented the court with seven of the defendant’s YouTube videos, showing him driving at extreme speeds. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the videos, arguing 1.) they were highly prejudicial and should be kept out of evidence, and 2.) the videos were being used by the prosecution to prove the defendant’s bad character. The court determined that one of the videos was admissible.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona manslaughter case discussing the government’s contention that the lower court improperly admitted certain evidence regarding the victim’s conduct in the moments leading up to a fatal traffic accident. Ultimately, the court concluded that the victim’s actions were not a superseding cause of the accident, and thus the evidence at issue was not admissible.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was driving well over the speed limit when he struck the rear-end of another vehicle that was making a left turn. Neither the driver of the other vehicle, nor his seven-month-old son, were properly restrained, and both were ejected from the car. The driver was seriously injured, and his son died. Officers found a marijuana pipe in the car, and the driver later tested positive for THC.

In a pre-trial motion, the prosecution asked the court to prevent the defendant from pursuing a superseding-cause theory and admitting evidence of the victim’s possible impairment. The prosecution also argued that evidence suggesting the victim failed to yield when making the left-turn was admissible, but that, as a matter of law, it was not a superseding cause of the accident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A defense attorney’s job is to vigorously fight for the rights of his client, and, ultimately to do what is in his client’s best interest. At the same time, any seasoned Arizona criminal defense attorney knows that not every case can result in a “Not Guilty” verdict.In some cases where there is a concern about an unfavorable verdict, pre-trial motions can be litigated in hopes of creating a more favorable scenario. For example, a pre-trial motion to suppress physical evidence or a motion in limine to preclude certain harmful testimony may make a defendant’s case much stronger. However, in situations where these pre-trial motions are denied or where the prosecution’s case against the accused is exceptionally strong, an experienced Arizona criminal defense attorney should discuss the idea of a negotiated guilty plea, or a plea bargain.

Plea bargains get a bad rap. However, tens of thousands of Arizona criminal defendants accept plea bargains to resolve their cases each year. This is because Arizona plea deals are the product of significant negotiation and take into account several factors. Most notably, when a defendant accepts responsibility for a crime, the prosecutor is able to divert scarce resources elsewhere. Thus, a prosecutor is motivated to resolve cases through negotiated plea bargains in order to focus on other, potentially more serious, cases.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In 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:

By

In a recent Arizona appellate case, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault resulting in temporary but substantial disfigurement and assault. The lower court suspended the imposition of a sentence and put him on probation. The defendant appealed, claiming that there was prosecutorial misconduct in charging him with aggravated assault causing serious physical injury, and the court had made a mistake in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on that charge because the evidence showed minor injuries.

The case arose in 2012, when a trooper responded to a pickup truck accident. The trooper found that a pickup truck had left the road, and crashed into a sign. There was blood on the driver’s side of the pickup, and none on the passenger side. Emergency medical personnel treated the defendant and his mother. He had a bleeding cut above his left eye and on his hands. The mother didn’t have any blood on her, but complained about experiencing pain. The trooper observed that the defendant had red watery eyes and other signs of inebriation. The defendant admitted that he’d had a few drinks.

The defendant and his mother were taken to the hospital. The trooper followed. At the hospital, a nurse told the trooper they’d be drawing the defendant’s blood for medical purposes and the trooper asked for a sample. The trooper waited in a common area, and overheard the defendant talking on the phone and saying that he’d gotten into the accident after consuming alcohol at a restaurant. He also overheard the defendant confirm to his health care providers that he’d been drinking alcohol.

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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 – 2024, The Law Office of James E. Novak
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design