Articles Posted in Violent Crime

If you are charged with a serious crime decades after it allegedly occurred, you may wonder how law enforcement identified you. In Arizona, courts allow DNA hits from government databases to be used in connecting people to cold cases. While this evidence can be robust, it also raises concerns about prejudice, assumptions, and whether it implies a history of criminal activity. In a recent ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that DNA evidence from a database may be introduced at trial if it is relevant and not unduly prejudicial.

In State v. Vergara, the person on trial was charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. These charges stemmed from an incident that took place nearly 30 years before law enforcement made an arrest. The charges came after a DNA profile submitted to a database produced a match. At trial, the defense objected to the use of any testimony suggesting the DNA came from a criminal database, arguing that it implied a prior record and prejudiced the jury. The trial court allowed the testimony, and the appeals court upheld that decision.

DNA Hits Can Be Used to Explain How Police Identify Suspects

The appeals court emphasized that prosecutors may explain how law enforcement came to suspect someone, especially when a long time has passed since the alleged offense. In this case, the match between DNA evidence from the original crime scene and a DNA profile in a database helped explain the investigative process. The court ruled that the testimony helped rebut the theory that officers had unfairly targeted the wrong person without justification.

Continue reading →

In serious felony trials in Arizona, the issue of what evidence is admitted or excluded can make all the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. The rules governing evidence are complex, and while they are bound by laws, the admission of evidence often involves a great deal of discretion by the judge. This process can be much messier than it appears, and even seemingly minor errors can have significant consequences.

A recent case involving a defendant convicted of first-degree murder highlights the importance of proper evidence handling and the challenges of appealing a conviction based on improper evidence admission. The defendant in this case appealed his conviction, arguing that certain evidence should not have been presented to the jury. The case underscores the critical role that skilled criminal defense attorneys play in ensuring a fair trial and preserving the right to appeal.

The case began with a tragic incident in which the defendant and a co-defendant traveled from Las Vegas to Scottsdale armed with a handgun and a makeshift silencer. They visited a home under the guise of delivering a gift basket and poinsettia plant. When the victim opened the door, the co-defendant forced his way inside and attacked her. The defendant, waiting nearby, shot and killed the victim before attempting to shoot others in the home.

Violent crimes can be tricky to litigate and to defend in court. One source of recent conversation in the Arizona criminal legal sphere has been the crime of aggravated assault, and whether hurting multiple people through one assault counts as multiple crimes or only one crime. The answer to this question matters because, in general, the more charges a person faces, the more convictions he might have on his record and the more time he might spend in jail or prison. Recently, an Arizona court addressed this question as it relates to one person firing one shot that then hits and injures multiple people.

Victim-Driven v. Conduct Driven Offenses

If, during the course of committing a violent crime, a defendant fires one gunshot and injures multiple people from that one shot, the defendant is still eligible to face multiple convictions of assault. As an Arizona court explained in its recent ruling, assault is known as a “victim-driven offense” as opposed to a “conduct-driven offense.” For a conduct-driven offense, a person firing one shot might be eligible for only one conviction, no matter how many people are injured. For a victim-driven offense, though, it matters how many individuals were harmed by the shot when the State decides how many charges to bring against the defendant.

Recently, a defendant in Arizona was found guilty of six counts of first-degree murder. He appealed his convictions, arguing in part that one of the jurors in his trial had external knowledge of a previous crime that he had committed. According to the defendant on appeal, this knowledge prejudiced the juror against him, and the trial court should have granted his request for a mistrial. The higher court reviewed the trial record and ultimately disagreed, finding that the juror credibly stated she did not remember that the defendant had been accused of another crime several years prior.

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.1

Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 24.1, a court may order a new trial either on the defendant’s motion or with the defendant’s consent. The defendant in this case moved for a new trial under this rule, arguing that one juror intentionally hid the fact that she knew the defendant was convicted of a previous murder. The trial court denied the defendant’s request, concluding that 1) the defendant did not show that the juror failed to disclose any knowledge and 2) regardless, the defendant failed to show any prejudice that resulted from the possible knowledge.

The defendant appealed. In the higher court’s opinion addressing the appeal, it noted that the juror testified that she knew about the previous murder, but she also indicated that she did not remember that the defendant in the case before her had been convicted of that murder. The court found this testimony to be credible; that is, it found it reasonable that the trial court relied on the juror’s testimony when deciding not to grant the defendant a mistrial.

Continue reading →

In general, when an officer puts a suspect under custodial interrogation, the officer must give the suspect Miranda warnings. That is, the officer is required by law to tell the suspect that he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. In some limited exceptions, though, these warnings are not necessary.

A recent case out of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, highlights such an exception. In this case, an officer stopped the defendant on an unrelated charge. He removed one firearm from the defendant’s car. Before the defendant left, the officer learned that the defendant was a suspect in an armed robbery and aggravated assault case. The officer then re-approached the defendant, asking if he had an additional weapon in the vehicle. At that point, the defendant replied that he did have a gun in the car.

Later, the State indicted the defendant on armed robbery, aggravated assault, and misconduct involving weapons. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the weaponry evidence, arguing that the officer asked about the second weapon before providing the necessary Miranda warnings.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant argued that his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault should be reversed. According to the defendant, the expert that testified on behalf of the prosecution during trial should not have been allowed to present himself as an expert. The court of appeals reviewed the officer’s qualifications, disagreed with the defendant’s analysis, and ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the court-issued opinion, the defendant in this case was driving 80 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone. His car hit another car from behind, and both vehicles flipped over and eventually stopped on a nearby embankment. The driver of the front car was taken to the hospital, and doctors later diagnosed her with fractured bones, fractured ribs, a broken sternum, and lacerations throughout her body.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault, and a jury convicted him as charged. The trial court then sentenced the defendant to three different prison terms for each of the three counts of aggravated assault of which he was found guilty. He promptly appealed the findings.

Continue reading →

In a recent criminal case before an appellate court in Arizona, the defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to deny his motion for a new trial. Originally, a jury found the defendant guilty of several crimes, including aggravated assault and attempted arson. He filed a motion for a new trial after the jury returned a guilty verdict, arguing that the evidence at trial did not support the jury’s ultimate decision. Once the trial court denied this motion, the defendant appealed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant assaulted his partner in her home. The defendant’s partner was ultimately able to escape, but when she returned to the home about half an hour later, the defendant immediately asked her if she smelled any gas. It became clear to the partner that the defendant was attempting to burn the house down.

The partner called 911, and emergency responders quickly arrived at the scene. The firefighters were able to keep the explosion from happening, and police officers arrested the defendant. He was charged with the following crimes: felony endangerment, aggravated assault, attempted sexual assault, kidnapping, and attempted arson.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before an appellate court in Arizona, the defendant asked the court to interpret a 2022 amendment to Arizona law in a way that would favor overturning his guilty verdict. Originally, the defendant was charged with and found guilty of first-degree murder. After receiving his guilty verdict, the defendant appealed, arguing that the higher court should closely critique the trial court’s decision to allow a certain jury member to serve on the case. Looking at the 2022 amendment regarding jury selection as well as the facts of this case, the higher court denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant went to trial on charges after he allegedly murdered his girlfriend. Before trial, both the prosecution and the defense proceeded with questioning potential jury members. The defense attorney objected to one juror in particular, who had close connections in her personal life to the kind of case that was on trial. The trial court, however, allowed the juror to serve, and the trial went forward.

The defendant was found guilty, and he promptly appealed.

Continue reading →