James E. Novak
Published on:

By

In a recent case coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and aggravated assault. The defendant challenged the trial court’s decisions, and the higher court concluded that the defendant was rightfully found guilty. There was another issue, though, that the court wanted to address: because it was not clear whether or not the prosecution had excluded a potential jury member based on her race, the court remanded the case to the lower court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was in a romantic relationship for several years, eventually living with his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s grandmother for a period of time. In late 2016, the defendant and his girlfriend got in a fight, and the girlfriend asked him to move out. The defendant kept one house key to himself and began living in his truck.

A few weeks later, the defendant used his key to let himself into the house. While he was there, the defendant’s ex-girlfriend and another man entered the house. The defendant fought with both individuals and retrieved a metal bar that he then used to threaten them. He eventually exchanged the metal bar for knives from the kitchen, which he put in both of his hands and brought into his ex-girlfriend’s bedroom. At that point, the defendant attacked the man that his girlfriend had supposedly been seeing. He stabbed the man seventeen times and also cut his ex-girlfriend’s arm when she attempted to intervene.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent assault case coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant appealed his guilty verdict. At trial, the prosecutor referenced eight prior convictions on the defendant’s record, and the defendant argued that this reference unnecessarily biased the jury deciding his case. The court looked to Arizona law and ultimately disagreed with the defendant, deciding it was acceptable for the prosecutor to mention the prior convictions during trial. Given this disagreement, the court maintained the defendant’s original guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and his girlfriend got into an altercation one evening in January 2019. At the time, the couple lived together at the girlfriend’s mother’s home with their child. After the altercation, the defendant left the home and consumed alcohol, returning to find his girlfriend and one of her friends in the house.

The couple again started to fight, this time physically. The defendant hit his girlfriend several times, bloodied her nose, and “choke slammed” her onto the bed. When the girlfriend’s friend attempted to intervene, the defendant pushed her out of the way and continued hitting his girlfriend. Police arrived at the scene, but by that point, the defendant had left the home.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant’s appeal of his guilty verdict for failure to register as a sex offender was denied. Originally, the defendant had been charged, found guilty, and sentenced when he failed to register as a sex offender in the county where he resided. On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution should not have been able to state that he was convicted of child molestation instead of any other “sex offense” during trial – this information, said the defendant, unnecessarily biased the jury. The court ultimately disagreed with the defendant and affirmed his guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was convicted of child molestation fourteen years ago and was ordered to register as a sex offender for life. In 2019, police officers contacted the defendant in Arizona and discovered he had not registered as a sex offender in his county. At that time, the defendant told officers that he did not think registering was necessary. One year later, officers arrested the defendant and charged him with failure to register as a sex offender.

The Decision

Before trial, the defendant’s lawyer asked the court to prevent the jury from learning that the specific crime for which the defendant was convicted was child molestation. According to defense counsel, it would be perfectly sufficient for the jury to learn that he had been convicted of a sex offense in general; telling jury members that he had molested a child was both unnecessary and highly prejudicial.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent opinion from an Arizona court involving sexual assault, the defendant’s appeal of his guilty verdict was denied. Originally, the defendant was found guilty of sexual conduct with a minor. He appealed, arguing the trial court unfairly used evidence of sexual abuse that occurred outside of the county where the court resided. Disagreeing with the defendant, the court affirmed the defendant’s guilty verdict.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the victim of sexual assault in this case was 13 years old when the defendant began molesting him. The defendant, a close family friend, would stay at the victim’s house and come into his room at night. On other occasions, the defendant brought the victim to an unoccupied house and engaged in sexual conduct with him there.

At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of four counts of molestation of a child and one count of sexual conduct with a minor. He was sentenced to time in prison, and he immediately appealed his guilty verdict.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent sexual assault case in Arizona, the court denied the defendant’s appeal of his guilty verdict. The defendant was originally convicted of sexual conduct with a minor, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, and continuous sexual abuse of a child. On appeal, he made several arguments, one of which was that the court should not have been able to access incriminating statements he made during phone calls with both of the children. Disagreeing with this argument, the court denied the appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was a family friend of the victims and their parents. For a couple of years, the defendant would regularly stay overnight at the family’s home after the family moved to Arizona in 2004. During these visits, the defendant sexually assaulted the two teenage brothers that lived at the residence.

In 2018, one of the brothers called the defendant to confront him about the abuse while detectives listened in. At first, the defendant denied the allegations, but eventually, he made incriminating statements. A few weeks later, in front of detectives, the same brother made another call to the defendant, who once again admitted to the abuse. After this second incriminating call, detectives listened in to a third phone call, this time between the second brother and the defendant. Again, the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the brothers.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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 →

Published on:

By

In a recent opinion from an Arizona court, the defendant unsuccessfully argued that his motion to suppress incriminating evidence was unfairly denied. At trial, the defendant had been found guilty of transportation of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, he argued that the original traffic stop leading to his charges was unreasonable and that it was an infringement on his privacy rights. The court disagreed, affirming the defendant’s convictions and sentence.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was pulled over in December 2019 when he was driving on the highway. Originally, the police officer who pulled the defendant over noticed his car because the defendant made an “odd gesture” and because the officer noticed an object in the windshield. After a few minutes, the defendant began driving through a dirt parking lot, over a curb, and into the parking lot of a nearby casino. Suspicious, the officer followed the defendant into the casino, approached him, and said he was conducting an investigatory stop for improper material on his windshield.

The officer checked the defendant’s license and registration, which led him to the realization that the defendant’s license was suspended. The officer called back up to the scene, including a unit of dogs to help him investigate. One dog sniffed the air around the defendant’s truck and led the officer to three packages of fentanyl. The defendant was indicted, and he moved to suppress the evidence from the traffic stop. The trial court denied his motion to suppress.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent Arizona case involving assault and attempted murder, the defendant’s attempt at appealing the trial court’s decision was denied. The defendant made four different arguments after having been charged and found guilty of aggravated assault and attempted first-degree murder, but the court ultimately disagreed with him, upholding his original verdict.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police officer was driving around 2:00 am when he noticed a car drive past him at a dangerously high speed. The officer turned on his emergency lights and stopped the vehicle, prompting the defendant to stop his car on the side of the road. Immediately, the defendant emerged and began running towards the officer with a gun in his hand, shooting at the officer in the process. The officer returned fire, and the two continued shooting at each other. The officer walked away from the incident uninjured, while the defendant sustained multiple gunshot wounds.

At trial, the officer testified that it was unclear which of the two men began firing first. Even though the officer’s memory of the events was blurry, the defendant was convicted for one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of attempted first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to thirty-five years in prison.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recently, an Arizona court denied a defendant’s appeal in an assault case. The defendant had been found guilty of aggravated assault after a woman he knew accused him of significantly injuring her when they were both in her apartment. The defendant appealed, arguing that the state should not have been allowed to bring in evidence of his previous felony convictions at trial. He also argued that the state failed to look at and preserve important evidence that would have worked in his favor. Ultimately, the court disagreed and denied the defendant’s appeal.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and a female companion of his went to a music venue where the defendant performed as a DJ. The defendant consumed enough alcohol to become intoxicated, while his female companion did not drink at all. The pair went back to the woman’s apartment, where the defendant soon became very upset and yanked one of the apartment’s doors from its hinges. The woman asked the defendant to leave, but he refused.

The woman soon blacked out on the floor of her apartment. When she woke up, she felt as if the room were spinning. She saw the defendant close the door and walk towards her; she blacked out another time and later found herself sitting on the floor with the defendants’ hands over her mouth and nose. The woman called 9-1-1 and was taken to the hospital, where she found pieces of her cell phone in her hair. She had several serious injuries she had not had before the incident, including injuries to her head, bruising, and scratches on various parts of her body.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent opinion in an Arizona case involving stolen jewelry, the defendant’s request for a new verdict was denied. After having been found guilty of selling stolen property, the defendant appealed by arguing there was insufficient evidence to support her guilty verdict. She also argued that it was actually her co-defendant who should be punished and that she should not be forced to pay the amount of the jewelry. The court disagreed, saying both that the evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict and it that was right for the defendant to be the one made to pay the money.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two defendants were involved in a trafficking charge that revolved around stolen jewelry and an attempt to sell that jewelry to a coin and gold shop. One of the defendants had taken the pieces from an individual’s home, then had given them to the second defendant to sell. When the defendant went into the shop and began showing the pieces to the store owner, it became quickly apparent that the defendant did not know any information about where the pieces had come from or how much money they were worth.

Suspicious, the store owner called detectives after the encounter. When detectives contacted the defendant, she claimed she found the jewelry discarded on the side of the road. The defendant could not, however, provide any details about how or where she found the pieces. At trial, the State charged the defendant with one count of second-degree trafficking in stolen property. She was ordered to pay the store owner as well as the original owner of the jewelry for the cost of the pieces – in total, $13,810.

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