James E. Novak
Published on:

By

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 →

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 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 →

Published on:

By

In an August 2023 case before an Arizona court of appeals, the State of Arizona appealed a trial court’s order suppressing a defendant’s DNA profile. The DNA in question connected the defendant with a 2015 murder, leading the State to charge him with first-degree murder, second-degree burglary, and sexual assault. After the State filed charges, the lower court determined that the DNA was obtained illegally, and it suppressed the DNA evidence. The State then appealed this decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators discovered the body of a dead woman in her apartment several years ago, in 2015. The murder went unsolved, as the investigators were unable to link any suspect to the incident.

Several years later, investigators conducted what is called a “familial DNA test” on the evidence from the 2015 crime scene. They discovered that an Arizona inmate was a close relative of the person whose DNA had been on the woman’s body. Investigating further, they then discovered that the inmate’s brother lived very close to the 2015 murder victim.

Because officers had previously arrested the inmate’s brother for several DUIs, they had already drawn this individual’s blood in the past. They then tested this blood, which they still had on file. The blood matched the unknown DNA from the murder scene several years prior.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his guilty verdict in a burglary case. The defendant was originally convicted after a jury unanimously decided he had broken into a friend’s apartment with the intent to steal. According to the defendant, the prosecution had not sufficiently proven that he did not have permission to be inside the apartment. Disagreeing with the defendant, the court denied his appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant asked a friend of his if he could temporarily stay in her garage. The friend agreed, and the defendant spent a few nights sleeping in the apartment garage. One night, however, he started yelling in the middle of the night. The friend told him he had to leave the next day.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his convictions for aggravated assault and child abuse. He primarily argued that the trial court should not have denied a motion to suppress incriminating evidence – the denial of the motion was unfair, and it eventually contributed to his guilty convictions. Examining the trial court’s decision, the court of appeals denied the defendant’s argument and decided against siding with the defendant.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, this case began when a mother brought her 8-month-old baby to an emergency room due to a head injury. Doctors examined the baby and learned he had been shot in the head. The baby went through treatment, and he eventually left the hospital with cerebral palsy, impaired vision, and a lifelong increased risk for seizure. The doctors considered the baby lucky to be alive.

Investigators began trying to figure out how the baby got shot. Officers obtained a search warrant and went to the baby’s father’s home, where they found a pellet gun rifle, pellets, and a car seat covered in blood. Two officers interviewed the baby’s dad in a patrol car that same day, and he admitted that he might have accidentally shot his baby while shooting quail.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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 →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant appealed her convictions for theft and fraudulent schemes. The defendant took issue with the trial court’s conduct during her trial, after which a jury found her guilty of mismanaging several trusts and taking trust owners’ money for herself. After looking closely at the trial record, the court of appeals disagreed with the defendant and kept her convictions and sentences in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant managed the assets of several trusts. Over time, it became clear that in each trust, the amount of money available to the trust owners was dwindling significantly. Upon investigating, the State discovered that the defendant was taking money out of each trust and using it to pay her credit card bills and fund her personal accounts. She also seemed to be fabricating her records of the time she spent managing the trust, recording unreasonably long hours and explaining that the significant payments were because of the high volume of hours she was working.

The State charged the defendant for mismanaging the trusts, and her case went to trial. At trial, the defendant chose to represent herself, despite being offered an attorney. She made several arguments in an attempt to get the case dismissed, but the trial went forward.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By
Recently, an appeals court in Arizona was faced with the decision of whether to reverse a lower court’s decision not to expunge an individual’s record. The individual was originally found guilty of marijuana possession in 2014, but after laws in Arizona passed that allowed for this kind of offense to be stricken from a person’s record, the defendant asked the court to remove it (or to “expunge” it). When the lower court denied this request, the defendant appealed, and the higher court agreed with the defendant, ultimately directing the lower court to erase the crime from the defendant’s record.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendant was arrested in 2014 for possessing 18 grams of marijuana. He pled guilty, and the superior court placed him on two years’ supervised probation. Even after he finished the probation, however, the offense remained on the defendant’s record.
In 2020, Arizona voters passed an important law that legalized adult possession of marijuana. The law also stated that agencies could file “expungement petitions,” asking courts to erase marijuana-related convictions from an individual’s record. Once this law passed, the State petitioned to expunge all records related to the defendant’s arrest and conviction. The court denied the State’s request, and the defendant appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant argued that his confession should have been suppressed at the trial court level. Originally, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, and after he was found guilty, he asked the higher court to reconsider the unfavorable verdict. After reviewing the case and ultimately agreeing with the defendant’s argument, the court vacated the verdict and the associated sentences.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the victim in this case drove up to a gas station one evening, got into an altercation with another individual, and was eventually shot in the leg. Because of blood loss associated with the shooting, the victim later died. Local police officers immediately began an investigation, which led them to the defendant in this case.

The officers obtained a search warrant and used that search warrant to collect DNA from the defendant. They connected the defendant’s DNA with DNA from the crime scene, which they told the defendant during his interrogation. After hearing this information, the defendant confessed 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

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 – 2025, The Law Office of James E. Novak
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design