James E. Novak
Published on:

By

In a recent Arizona appeals court opinion, a defendant filed a motion to suppress statements he made to detectives based on whether the statements were made voluntary. The lower court delayed a ruling on the motion until testimony was made during the course of the trial, eventually finding that the statements were made voluntarily by the defendant. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision because the lower court was not required to make a voluntariness determination in this matter and because the court’s delayed ruling did not impact the evidence.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a minor child testified that the defendant, who was her adoptive father, had been sexually abusing her for over ten years. A recorded phone call during a police investigation revealed that the defendant also had similarly sexually abused the child victim’s mother, starting when the mother was about fourteen years old. The mother married the defendant, and the defendant adopted the child victim.

Before the trial occurred, the defendant filed a motion to suppress involuntary statements, but in his motion, he only asked the court to examine whether his statements were admissible under the law based on voluntariness. The defendant did not raise the voluntariness claim in a timely manner or argue that the statements he made to detectives should be suppressed. The lower court noted the untimeliness of the defendant’s motion and did not make a ruling on it before trial, but instead decided to consider the voluntariness of the defendant’s statements during the course of the trial. During the trial, it was revealed that the defendant fully cooperated with the investigation and consented to an interview before he was in custody. The jury found the defendant guilty of child sex abuse and sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 35 years. The defendant appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recently decided case in an Arizona court, the court denied a defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence because of the defendant’s lack of legitimate expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This case highlights the complicated nature of searches and seizures under the law and the importance of having an experienced criminal law attorney to assist in your defense.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an eight-month pregnant woman was driving in her car with her daughter when the driver of another vehicle ran her off the road as she attempted to merge into a new lane. The husband of the pregnant woman was driving directly behind his wife and witnessed the driver of the other vehicle cause his wife to almost hit a parked vehicle. As a result, the husband followed behind the other vehicle and yelled to the driver about running his wife off the road. The defendant, who was a passenger in the other car, fired a gun at the husband’s vehicle three times which caused a flat tire.

The husband and wife reported the incident to the police and reported the other car’s location after the pair followed the defendant. The defendant was dropped off at a community college while carrying two bags and dropped one of the bags in one of the lockers in a locker room. After checking the school’s surveillance video, a police officer searched the locker room. In a locker with mesh-like sides, the officer eventually found a similar-looking bag. The officer found the gun used in the shooting. The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence found in the locker, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to the warrantless search of the locker. The lower court denied the motion. Despite arguing that his actions were a form of self-defense and defense of others in the car, the defendant was found guilty.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recently, an Arizona court issued an opinion in an aggravated assault case following the defendant’s challenge of the jury selection. The defendant raised a challenge alleging that the opposing party excluded certain individuals because of their race. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision in denying the defendant’s challenge.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, parties of an upcoming trial were selecting individuals to serve on the jury. The defendant challenged the jury selection, requesting that the prosecutor explain why they chose to remove the only two Black individuals from serving on the jury. The prosecutor explained that they struck one individual from serving on the jury because that individual’s brother was convicted of a crime, which they worried could impact the individual’s ability to judge fairly. The second person was removed from the jury selection pool because that individual was previously involved in a criminal case. The trial court found that these were reasonable and race-neutral justifications and thus that the challenge raised by the defendant should be denied.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In the state of Arizona, criminal defendants can request that the court excludes from trial certain evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s rights. If you have been charged with committing a crime in Arizona, you may file a motion to suppress physical evidence if you believe specific rights granted from either the United States Constitution, the state constitution, or a statute are violated. Filing a motion to suppress can serve as an essential tool for disputing charges as a defendant.

For example, if police officials obtain evidence in violation of a criminal defendant’s Miranda rights, successfully requesting suppression of any evidence prior to trial would bar the prosecution from using it against the defendant once the trial commences. Another example is if a police officer illegally arrests you without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

If this evidence turns out to be important for the prosecution’s case and if the motion to suppress is successfully granted by the court, the exclusion of certain evidence could lead to a dismissal of the charges against the defendant. For example, if you are able to suppress a gun in an Arizona weapons case, the prosecution cannot proceed without the evidence, meaning they will often drop the case against you.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona recently issued an opinion setting forth the procedure for determining whether an individual is a “sexually violent person” (SVP). The case arose after prosecutors charged the Arizona defendant with one count of sexual conduct with a minor. The defense moved for a competency examination, and the trial court found him not competent and not restorable (NCNR).

In response, the prosecutors requested an SVP screening, arguing that the procedure was warranted under § 13-4518(A). The defendant argued that the statute did not require a screen, and it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to order one when the record does not support the order. At a hearing on the issue, the defendant argued that although the State met two elements of the statute, that alone did not require the trial court to grant the request. Nevertheless, the trial court ordered the screening.

Under Arizona’s SVP Act, a sexually violent person is one who has “been convicted or been found guilty but insane of a sexually violent offense” or was charged as such and was found guilty but insane and has a mental disorder that makes it more likely that they will engage in sexually violent acts.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona drug case, affirming the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. As a result, the defendant’s eight-year prison sentence for disorderly conduct and possession of narcotics was affirmed. The case is an example of the court’s ability to resolve conflicting versions of events at a motion to suppress.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, police received a call from the complaining witness, reporting a disturbance at her home. The complaining witness happened to work at the police station and called the responding officer as he was on his way to the scene. The officer could hear knocking and what he identified as a ringing doorbell in the background. The complaining witness told police that the defendant was the one causing the disturbance.

When the officer arrived, he saw the defendant outside the home and arrested him for disorderly conduct. Incident to the defendant’s arrest, the officer searched the defendant, finding methamphetamine and a pipe. The defendant tried to explain that he was trying to alert the complaining witness of a potential emergency. The complaining witness’s sister-in-law arrived on the scene, corroborating the defendant’s version of events.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In today’s connected society, physical borders are becoming increasingly blurred. More than ever, we interact with people from across the nation—and the globe—on a regular basis. However, when we use the Internet, much of our information is also stored electronically. The availability and access to online data is a hot topic in criminal law and raises many valid concerns. For example, recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona attempted homicide case requiring the court to determine if and when an Arizona court can issue a search warrant pertaining to evidence located outside of Arizona.

The Facts of the Case

The case involved a woman who allegedly tried to poison her husband. According to the court’s opinion, the woman’s husband collapsed after a dinner party. The man’s wife called 911, and emergency workers took the man to the hospital. At the hospital, the woman told doctors to communicate only with her about her husband’s condition.

Through routine testing, medical workers discovered that he had high levels of ethylene glycol—the main compound in anti-freeze—in his blood. Doctors asked the man’s family if they found any anti-freeze in the house. This surprised the family, who were previously unaware that he had high levels of ethylene glycol in his blood. Upon learning this information, the couple’s children called the police.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Towards the end of last year, Arizona became the 13th state in the country to legalize recreational use of marijuana when voters passed Proposition 207 by a 60/40 margin. By the end of January 2021, stores across the state were selling marijuana to consumers. However, Arizona’s new marijuana law doesn’t provide for carte blanche legalization and raises many questions.

There a few things to keep in mind about Arizona’s new recreational marijuana law. For example, possessing, selling, growing, and driving under the influence of marijuana still remains illegal under some circumstances. And in most cases, the potential punishment for violating the state’s new marijuana laws are very harsh.

Possession of Marijuana

Proposition 207 legalized the possession of a small amount of marijuana for adults over the age of 21. Under the current law, possessing less than an ounce of marijuana is legal. However, possession of more than an ounce but less than 2.5 ounces is a petty offense, punishable by a fine. From there, the punishments increase quickly. For example, possession of two to four pounds of marijuana is a felony offense that carries a term of imprisonment of up to two years.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The law provides Arizona defendants with certain avenues of relief after a criminal conviction. While there are restrictions regarding what types of cases and issues are appealable, many defendants can challenge a conviction or sentence. If one has completed their sentence, they may be eligible to restore their civil rights by setting aside a criminal conviction. Appeals are much more complicated than criminal trials, and the proceedings require a comprehensive understanding of complex statutory and procedural rules.

The main types of conviction-review mechanisms are post-conviction relief and direct appeals. Once a court convicts and sentences a party, a defendant has the right to file a motion for post-conviction relief. These petitions are filed with the same trial court that issued the initial ruling. The Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (ARCP) designate the appealable issues permitted in these petitions. Specifically, Rule 32 provides an avenue for relief after the defendant has been found guilty or sentenced at a probation violation proceeding. Moreover, Rule 33 pertains to situations where a defendant pled guilty. The majority of these petitions assert ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

For instance, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in a defendant’s petition to review a trial court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. The appeal arose after a jury trial convicted the defendant of aggravated domestic violence, criminal damage, and influencing a witness in two consolidated cases. The defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the consolidation.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in a defendant’s appeal of his conviction and sentence for two cases, one of which involved an Arizona weapons offense. That case arose when police officers stopped the defendant when they noticed him riding his bicycle against traffic on a two-lane road. During the stop, police noticed a combat-style knife on his hip. When asked, the defendant admitted he was a felon, and the detectives arrested him. The court consolidated both of the defendant’s cases, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress.

The defendant argues that police abused their discretion and improperly stopped him. He further contends that he was not violating a statute because he was not riding his bike on the roadway. Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures. Moreover, the exclusionary rule prohibits the state from introducing evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Generally, investigative stops are permitted if the stop is substantiated by “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”

In this case, the officers testified that they drove by the defendant when they noticed him riding on the gravel, talking on a cell phone, and steering the bike with one hand. They stopped him after they noticed oncoming traffic swerving to avoid the defendant. The court found that the detectives possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. The court reasoned that the police believed that the defendant was obstructing the highway and creating a public hazard.

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