Trial Proceedings

In the case before the Arizona court, the defendant was originally charged with aggravated assault and domestic violence assault. The State charged him after his girlfriend, the victim in the case, called police officers indicating that the defendant had physically assaulted her. During the defendant’s trial, he tried to present evidence demonstrating that the victim had previously made multiple false allegations against him in an attempt to get the defendant into custody. The trial court told him he could not present this evidence, given that it was extrinsic and not relevant to the offense at issue. A jury later found the defendant guilty as charged.

Appeal

On appeal, the defendant argued the evidence should have been admitted, since it spoke to the victim’s motive in the case. The higher court agreed. Certain evidence of other crimes, said the court, may be admitted to show a person’s motive. Here, the victim’s prior fabrications could have established her intent to lie about the assault in the present case. This evidence could have made a difference in the outcome of the defendant’s case, as the jury would have been more likely to find him not guilty had it heard the evidence that was excluded.

The court vacated the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case back down to the trial court for further proceedings. The case serves as a powerful reminder that familiarity with Arizona rules of evidence can make or break the outcome of a trial. To give yourself the best possible chance of success, hire an experienced and aggressive Phoenix violent crimes attorney, one that can litigate your case with full knowledge of the evidence rules as well as the exceptions that a court might apply.

Are You on the Lookout for a Phoenix Violent Crimes Attorney to Fight Your Charges?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we make your priorities our priorities, and we make your acquittal our number one goal. If you are facing criminal charges in Arizona, there is no better choice for your representation. We have years of experience representing the accused, and our familiarity with the court system, rules of evidence, and various litigation strategies make us well poised to take on your case. For a free and confidential consultation with a qualified, experienced Phoenix violent crimes attorney, give our office a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to have a member of our team get back in touch with you as soon as possible regarding your next steps.

The Evidence at Trial

This case began when the defendant was charged with second-degree murder. The defendant admitted to killing the victim in the case, but he argued at trial that he shot the gun out of self-defense. This self-defense argument was crucial for the defendant’s chance at receiving a more favorable sentence. During trial, the court allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence regarding weapons and ammunition that investigators found in his home. The weapons had nothing to do with the specific gun that the defendant used to shoot the victim.

To justify using the evidence, the prosecution argued that the evidence helped the jury assess the defendant’s reasonableness, or lack thereof. The prosecution explained that the defendant was a “paranoid” person, and having guns in his home helped the jury see that he was unreasonable, and therefore less likely to reasonably act in self-defense.

The Appeal

The jury found the defendant guilty. On appeal, though, the higher court reversed the guilty verdict. It was out of line, said the higher court, for the lower court to allow the jury to hear evidence about the defendant’s weapons in his home. These weapons had nothing to do with the case at hand. What’s more, said the court, a self-defense justification does not depend at all on whether a defendant is a “reasonable” person. For these reasons, then, the trial court incorrectly allowed the jury to review the evidence. The court reversed and remanded the case, and the defendant will get another shot at trial, this time without the prejudicial evidence in the record.

Are You Looking for an Experienced Phoenix Violent Crimes Attorney?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we understand that during trial, there is so much on the line. Because your personal rights and freedoms are extremely important, we fight aggressively to defend our clients facing criminal charges. We also understand the rules of evidence, and we know how to challenge the admission of prejudicial evidence. Smart litigation tactics can go a long way, and because of our decades of experience in the field, we are well-equipped to handle your criminal defense needs. For a free and confidential consultation with an expert Phoenix violent crimes attorney, give us a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have a member of our team get back in touch with you as soon as possible to discuss next steps.

Details of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and the victim in this case got into a verbal argument one day at work. The defendant worked for a beverage company, the victim worked for a grocery store, and the defendant was dropping off beverages at the victim’s store. Because of confusion over the beverages, the individuals started yelling at each other.

The victim told the defendant to leave the store, and the defendant stabbed the victim from behind several times. The defendant then stood on top of the victim and continued to stab and kick him. The victim went to the hospital and sustained several serious injuries. Investigators later reviewed surveillance camera footage and determined that the defendant was the person who assaulted the victim.

Self-Defense Claim

The defendant pled not guilty, and his case went to trial. At trial, the defendant testified that the victim had a “bladed instrument” in his hand during the altercation. According to the defendant, he thought the victim was going to use the bladed instrument against him, so he took it from the victim’s hand and used it in self-defense.

The jury found the defendant guilty to aggravated assault, and he promptly appealed. On appeal, however, the higher court did not find evidence that the bladed instrument indeed belonged to the victim. In fact, said the higher court, no one ever found the instrument used in the assault at all. There was no additional evidence to support the defendant’s claim. The court therefore affirmed the original conviction and sentence.

Succeeding on a self-defense claim involves careful planning and concrete evidence. Oftentimes, oral testimony alone is not enough to succeed on this affirmative defense. If you have committed an assault in self-defense, make sure you have retained an expert, prepared Phoenix violent crimes lawyer that knows how to properly argue your case.

Do You Need a Phoenix Violent Crimes Lawyer in Your Corner?

If you have been charged with assault or another violent crime, you want to have the best representation possible by your side. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we offer experience-based, aggressive representation for each and every one of our clients. Our team takes the necessary time to get to know each case in order to make sure we can prepare the best strategy possible and get the charges dropped. For a free and confidential consultation with an Arizona assault lawyer, give us a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online “contact us” form to have a member of our team get back to you as soon as possible about your case.

Expert testimony involves the presentation of opinions or conclusions by individuals with specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular field relevant to the case. Unlike lay witnesses who testify about facts within their personal knowledge, expert witnesses provide professional opinions to assist the court in understanding complex issues.

The recently decided opinion involved a case where the defendant appealed convictions for aggravated assault, and the victim testified as to the source of damage to a vehicle. On appeal, the defendant argues that this was expert testimony that was improperly admitted at trial. In the recently released opinion, the appellate court discussed the factors that define expert testimony versus lay testimony.

Testimony from lay witnesses must be rationally based on their perception of events, helpful in understanding the case, and not reliant on specialized knowledge beyond their expertise. Witnesses who testify as to scientific or technical knowledge must be qualified as experts. Expert testimony is based on scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge within the scope of the relevant legal standards. However, it must also be rooted in the witness’s perception and helpful in determining facts in the case.

In the case discussed in the judicial opinion, the court addressed the admissibility of testimony regarding damage to a tow truck allegedly caused by bullets. The court determined that the witness’s testimony was that of a lay witness, not an expert, as it was based on their perception of events and did not rely on specialized knowledge beyond their expertise.

While not every case involves expert witness testimony, in those that do, it is imperative to have an experienced attorney at your side to review the testimony and ensure the judge instructs the jury appropriately. Otherwise, you run the risk of the jury assigning too much credibility to the testimony.

Challenging and Utilizing Expert Witness Testimony in Your Case

Understanding the requirements for expert testimony is crucial for mounting a strong defense. Whether challenging the admissibility of opposing expert testimony or leveraging expert witnesses in your favor, strategic decision-making can significantly impact the outcome of your case. If you are facing criminal charges in Arizona, it is imperative to understand the legal implications of expert testimony and seek competent legal representation to navigate such complexities. The skilled Arizona criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of James E. Novak are experienced in handling many types of criminal charges, including violent crimes. With our experience, you can be confident you’ll have the best chance of successfully defending against whatever charges have been brought against you. Contact us now at 480-413-1499 to schedule a no-obligation consultation to discuss your case.

The Incident in Question

The charges and convictions in this case stemmed from an incident involving several friends and a stolen vehicle. The defendant in this case went to a casino with a friend, and she borrowed a car from her roommate to get to and from the casino. Apparently, the defendant’s roommate had taken the car from an acquaintance, although the acquaintance had never filed a police report indicating that the car was stolen. Before the defendant and her friend went home, they stopped by a gas station. At that point, the roommate’s acquaintance, who owned the car, approached the vehicle by quickly running up to it. He started yelling at the defendant, demanding that she return the car. The defendant became afraid, and she started to drive away. As she drove, she hit the friend that had accompanied her to the casino. The friend ultimately suffered a head injury and died from the incident.

The defendant was criminally charged, and her case went to trial. After being found guilty, the defendant promptly appealed.

The Defendant’s Appeal

In her appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court judge should have informed the jury that she could have been acting in self-defense. According to the defendant, she had never seen the man before, and she was afraid for her life when the man approached her. She therefore had a legitimate reason to try and leave the scene quickly, which lessened her guilt for her friend’s unfortunate death. The court reviewed the defendant’s argument and ultimately agreed. While it would be up to the jury, said the court, whether the defendant was truly acting in self-defense, it was the judge’s responsibility to make sure jury members were aware of this possible defense. Because the trial court failed to introduce this possibility, the defendant suffered prejudice, and her case should be sent back down to the trial court.

Siding with the defendant, then, the court vacated the convictions for aggravated assault and negligent homicide for a new jury to consider during a new trial.

Do You Need an Arizona Assault Lawyer in Your Corner?

If you have been charged with assault or another violent crime, you want to have the best representation possible by your side. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we offer client-centered, aggressive litigation strategies that aim to get your charges dropped. Our team is proud to provide strong defense, every time and for every client. For a free and confidential consultation with an Arizona assault lawyer, give us a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to have a member of our team get back to you as soon as possible.

Background of the Case

The opinion details the case’s history. One evening in October 2019, the defendant and his wife began arguing. Sometime between the hours of 7:15pm and 9:00pm, neighbors heard a gunshot, and investigators later learned that the bullet came from one of the defendant’s guns. The defendant’s wife was later found dead by the same bullet. The defendant had attempted to clean the bloodied carpet, the furniture, and the padding under the nearby turf, but stains remained that revealed what had occurred. Following the clean-up attempts, the defendant dumped his wife’s body by a ditch nearby.

Despite these attempts to hide the murder, investigators found enough evidence to link the defendant to the crime. He was criminally charged, and after a ten-day trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts. The court sentenced the defendant to the maximum amount of time for all three convictions. The defendant promptly appealed.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court unfairly took into account a prior conviction when deciding on his sentence. Considering this argument, the higher court ultimately agreed and ordered that the court re-sentence the defendant accordingly.

At the heart of the court’s opinion was the fact that the trial court did not find that the defendant had what is called a “historical prior felony conviction.” The defendant did have a prior attempted aggravated DUI conviction on his record, but this offense did not qualify under the law as a “historical prior felony conviction,” which meant the trial court could not consider the offense when deciding the defendant’s sentence. Therefore, the trial court’s sentencing decision was too harsh, and it was the trial court’s job to reconsider the sentence without taking into account this attempted aggravated DUI conviction.

Ruling for the defendant, then, the Court sent the case back down to the lower court.

Are You on the Lookout for an Arizona Violent Crimes Attorney?

If you or a loved one has been charged with a violent crime in Arizona, give us a call at the Law Office of James E. Novak. We recognize that any criminal charges are serious charges, and we are committed to making sure your voice is heard and your rights are well protected. With so much on the line in the face of criminal charges, the best thing you can do for yourself is reach out to an aggressive, experienced Arizona violent crimes attorney today. For a free and confidential consultation with our firm, give us a call at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

Officers found the dead body of a man in his apartment after a call from the man’s brother in November 2018. When the police officers went to check in on the man, they immediately noticed an odor upon entering his apartment building. They pushed open the door and found the man dead on the ground – it appeared as if he had been dead for at least several days.

The officers investigated and noticed that there had been several fraudulent charges coming out of the victim’s bank account. They linked these charges to the victim’s roommate, who became the defendant in this case. After further investigation, they arrested the defendant and charged him with the murder. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty as charged.

The Decision

The defendant promptly appealed the conviction, arguing that the prosecution unfairly introduced a written confession that he handed to a fellow inmate while he was incarcerated. According to the defendant, the court did not properly consider whether the note was voluntarily written, and if anyone coerced him to write the letter, the jury should not have been allowed to consider it as evidence.

The court viewed the evidence from the trial record and determined there was no reason to believe the written confession was coerced. The court could not find evidence of any threats that would have affected the defendant’s letter. In fact, said the court, the defendant had testified that the police were not at all involved in eliciting the confession from him. He wrote and delivered the letter to the other inmate without any influence from another individual.

Therefore, said the court, the defendant did not have a leg to stand on when he claimed the letter could have been coerced. The trial court, therefore, properly admitted the letter, and the jury’s finding would remain in place. The defendant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Are You Looking for a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona?

If you or a loved one is facing allegations of a violent crime in Arizona, you can count on the Law Office of James E. Novak for your litigation needs. We offer thorough, carefully executed representation that is unmatched in the state, because we believe that each and every client deserves the best attorney possible to help them fight their charges. For a free and confidential consultation, give us a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have someone reach back out to you as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

Several years ago, the defendant’s daughter was brought to the hospital because of lacerations, infections, wounds, and swollen bones. Doctors tried to treat her, but she eventually died because of the injuries. Immediately, investigators began to try and find out how the girl became so injured. Eventually, their evidence led them to the defendant in this case. He was charged with child abuse and first-degree felony murder.

Before trial, the trial court conducted something called “competency proceedings.” These proceedings allow the court to determine if the defendant is mentally competent enough to stand trial. The court found that the defendant was, indeed, competent. His trial proceeded, and he was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant took issue with the court’s exclusion of several fact witnesses that all resided in Mexico. The State of Arizona had asked the court to exclude these witnesses, given that they had no firsthand knowledge of the alleged abuse or of the daughter’s death. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that they would be helpful in that they could testify about his inability to read, write, speak English, text, or operate a GPS. The defendant wanted to use this evidence to show the jury why he was unable to call for help, get his daughter to a hospital, or read instructions on medicine bottles that could potentially save his daughter’s life.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the court improperly kept out evidence from these fact witnesses about his diminished capacity. According to the court, however, the defendant’s inability to do things like read or dial phone numbers did not show that he was physically unable to perform bodily movements to care for his daughter. While he might not have known whether he should take certain steps, the evidence showed nothing about his ability or inability to perform live saving physical movements that could have helped in a time of crisis.

Therefore, said the higher court, the trial court was correct to exclude the testimony. The defendant’s conviction would remain in place.

Are You Looking for a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona?

At The Law Office of James E. Novak, our 20+ years of experience fighting for the accused in Arizona make us uniquely positioned to represent you and get you the results you need. If you are facing criminal charges in Arizona and need high quality representation, give us a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have someone reach back out to you as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was originally charged after his three-year-old daughter was killed in 2015. When the daughter originally came to the emergency room for treatment, she had lacerations on her head, infections, a swollen knee, and wounds on her chest. She was also significantly malnourished, and it appeared as though she had been both dehydrated and abused.

The defendant was charged with child abuse, kidnapping, and first-degree felony murder of his daughter. His case went to trial, and a jury unanimously found him guilty. The defendant then promptly appealed.

The Decision

The defendant’s main argument on appeal was that it was unfair for the trial court to keep him from introducing expert testimony at trial. He had hoped to bring in the testimony of a psychologist who would have said that the defendant is significantly mentally disabled, which prohibits him from doing basic things like reading, buying food, and cooking. According to the defendant, this testimony would have shown that he was physically unable to fully protect his daughter.

Reviewing the trial court’s decision to prohibit this testimony, the higher court determined that the defendant’s argument was without merit. The testimony about the disability, said the court, was irrelevant to whether or not the defendant had harmed his daughter. The defendant was not alleging that the disability made him act involuntarily – he was not claiming he had some kind of epileptic fit or unconscious episode that made him hurt the girl. Thus, there was not enough of a connection between the disability and the abuse to find that the trial court had made an error, and the lower court’s judgment should remain in place.

Are You in Need of a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we stand our ground in the face of tough circumstances because we believe strong legal strategy can make all of the difference when your freedom is on the line. If you or a loved one is facing in Arizona child abuse, the best thing you can do for yourself is call a qualified, aggressive lawyer to make sure you are doing all in your power to fight back. For a free and confidential consultation with our firm, call us today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have someone reach back out to you as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and a friend of his were found near the body of a murder victim in November 2016. Both individuals were brought in for questioning, and the defendant said he wanted to speak with an attorney before saying anything to the officers. The officers granted this request, and they put both individuals into a room while they waited for attorneys to arrive. The defendant and his friend did not know that the room was being monitored by video and audio recording.

The defendant and his friend began talking, and the defendant stated that he had fired shots into the back of the victim’s head. The State admitted this confession at trial, and the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that his statement should not have been admitted at trial. He made the statement involuntarily, he said, and he did not realize what he was doing because of his young age. The defendant’s main issue was that the officers had created an atmosphere in which he felt forced to discuss the facts of the case. This environment, combined with the fact that the defendant was young and did not fully understand what was happening, meant that the resulting statement was made involuntarily. If the statement was made involuntarily, it should not have been admitted at trial.

The court reviewed the record and looked at the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest. It is true, said the court, that a confession must be made voluntarily for it to be admissible at trial. Here, however, the court found that the defendant’s confession was indeed voluntary. The defendant was not being interrogated by police at the time of his confession. No one had threatened him, intimidated him, or used force to make him start talking. Regarding his young age, the court found that the defendant had previous experience with police officers and that he should have been familiar with the process of being held in custody.

With these conclusions in mind, the court denied the defendant’s appeal.

Have Your Rights Been Threatened in an Arizona Criminal Case?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we take pride in making sure all of our clients’ rights are well protected. We understand how scary it can be to be confronted by police officers, and our priority is to make sure you are well-represented so that no officer takes advantage of you. We represent clients in all types of serious criminal cases, including those involving violent crimes. If you are facing criminal charges, call our office today for a free and confidential consultation. We can be reached at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, law enforcement received a service call to investigate the defendant’s fifth-wheel trailer in a backyard. A police officer arrived at the scene, knocked on the trailer door, announced that he was from the police department, and ordered the defendant outside to talk.

The officer informed the defendant that he was under arrest. When the officer began putting the defendant in handcuffs, the defendant threw his elbows out, pulled away, and turned on the officer. A fight ensued. At one point, the defendant struck the officer with several solid objects. The officer then drew his pistol and fired a single round into the defendant’s neck.

Additional officers arrived at the scene, and the defendant continued to resist arrest. After a few minutes of this altercation, the defendant became somewhat limp, and the officers were able to handcuff him. The officers searched the defendant and ended up finding methamphetamine on his person. The officer that the defendant had struck was taken to the hospital, where he received a stitch on his forehead and eight staples on his head.

The Decision

The defendant was charged and later found guilty of aggravated assault on a police officer. On appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court should have informed the jury that they could have found that the defendant was acting in self-defense. According to the defendant, he was not convinced that the person knocking on his door was a police officer. Thus, it was reasonable for him to resist arrest. The jury should have been told that this was a real possibility, which might have led them to conclude that the defendant was not guilty, given that he was acting in legitimate self-defense.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument. Importantly, said the court, the officer was dressed in uniform and had clearly identified himself as an officer. There was no evidence that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have thought that the person arresting him was not a real police officer. Thus, the self-defense instruction was not necessary, and the defendant’s appeal was denied.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges in the State of Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we understand what it takes to successfully litigate a criminal case in Arizona. If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, the best thing you can do for yourself is to speak with a qualified, aggressive attorney that will take the time to walk you through your options moving forward. To take the first step, call our office for a free and confidential consultation at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion in May of 2015, the defendant, a Lance Corporal in the United States Marine Corps, lived with his wife and twenty-month-old step-daughter at the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma. On May 18, his wife spent time playing with the daughter, and neither she nor their neighbor observed any injuries on her. Photographs taken by the defendant’s wife that day also do not reveal any evidence of injuries to her daughter. That night when the defendant picked up his wife, she was upset that he did not bring her daughter because she did not like leaving her daughter alone. The defendant told her during the ride home that he had spanked the daughter because she had been misbehaving. When they arrived home, the defendant’s wife went directly to bed, while the defendant checked in on the daughter before going to sleep.

The next morning, when the wife went in to see her daughter after the defendant had left for work, she found her “laying halfway off the bed with her head on the floor.” Her daughter’s body was cold and stiff. She saw marks that resembled burns and called 911. When paramedics arrived on the scene they were unable to resuscitate the daughter, who had no pulse. She was then transported to the hospital where she was pronounced dead. The defendant was subsequently interviewed and investigated by Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents as well as the Yuma Police Department. During his interviews with the NCIS agents, the defendant made several incriminating statements and signed a waiver relieving them of the need to advise him of his constitutional rights.

The defendant was first charged in court-martial proceedings and ultimately the charges were dismissed without prejudice.

A Yuma County Grand Jury then indicted the defendant on one count of second-degree murder. At the superior court level, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. On appeal, the defendant made a wide range of arguments. stating that due to his military status that his prosecution violated Arizona’s separation-of-powers-doctrine, challenging the admission of autopsy photographs at the trial court stage, entering three motions to suppress statements made to investigators, entering a motion to suppress expert testimony from the trial court stage, arguing that defense witnesses were improperly precluded at the trial court stage, disputing multiple evidentiary rulings from the trial court decision, and lastly arguing that the superior court erroneously denied his request to give the jurors an other-act limiting instruction. Additionally, the defendant challenged his sentence on two grounds, asserting the superior court (1) considered an improper aggravator in imposing his sentence, and (2) by sentencing him without the necessary specific jury finding.

Regarding the defendant’s separation-of-powers argument, the appeals court found that Arizona has the jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed within its territorial borders. Regarding the evidentiary claims, the motions to suppress statements by the defendant, the exclusion of defense witness claims, and the improper jury instruction claim, the appeals court found that the evidence was properly admitted, that the superior court properly denied the defendant’s motions to suppress, that the witnesses were not improperly excluded and that the denial of jury instruction was not improper. Finally, the appeals court found no issue in the trial court sentencing of the defendant. The appeals court affirmed both his conviction and his sentence.

Have You Been Charged with a Violent Crime in Arizona?

If you are facing criminal charges for a violent crime in Arizona, call us at The Law Office of James E. Novak. We are committed to advocating for your rights and exploring every aspect of your case to find the holes in the prosecution’s charges against you. For a free and confidential consultation, call us at 480-413-1499. You can also send us an online message to have your questions answered.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police were responding to a report of theft in the parking lot of a Family Dollar store when they spotted the defendant in this case. The defendant matched the description of the suspect they were looking for, so they approached him to investigate the situation. As soon as the officers approached, the defendant began running away, at which point one officer took the defendant by the arm and reached for his handcuffs.

Subsequently, the defendant swung his elbow back towards the officer and pushed the officer away. The officer fell to the ground, and the defendant continued to run. The officer was later treated at the hospital and diagnosed with a head injury as a result of the incident.

The defendant was charged and convicted of aggravated assault against a police officer. He appealed his guilty conviction.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant’s main argument was that the court incorrectly admitted testimony from a police officer that had witnessed the altercation. According to the defendant, the officer’s testimony was hearsay, which is not allowed to be entered into evidence. The officer testified during trial that he saw the defendant knock down and assault the arresting officer, as well as that the defendant then took off running into the nearby neighborhood.

Because hearsay is any statement made outside of the courtroom that is offered to prove a specific matter inside the courtroom, it is inherently not credible. Thus, said the defendant, the testifying officer’s statement lacked credibility and should not have been included during his trial.

The court considered this argument but ultimately disagreed. While the court acknowledged that the defendant’s definition of hearsay was correct, it concluded that the officer’s statement did not actually qualify as hearsay. The purpose of the statement, said the court, was not to prove any specific matter inside the courtroom; instead, the purpose of the statement was to provide context as to why the testifying officer then went to search for the defendant in the nearby neighborhood. Given this unique purpose, the statement did not actually fall under the umbrella of “hearsay”, and it was acceptable for the trial court to consider the statement in deciding the defendant’s case.

The defendant’s appeal was thus denied, and the court kept the original conviction and sentence in place.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges in the State of Arizona?

If you are currently defending yourself against assault charges in Arizona, give us a call at The Law Office of James E. Novak. We understand that there is more to any story than meets the eye, and we offer individualized, holistic representation that takes into account your needs and perspectives. For a free, confidential consultation, call us today at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

The defendant shot a man in June 2017 after having heard from others in the community that the man wanted to kill him. A few days before the shooting, the defendant confronted the man about these statements, and the man punched the defendant in the nose with a sharp object.

On the night in question, the man found the defendant in a residential neighborhood. The two individuals began arguing, and the man threatened the defendant by saying, “next time you pull a gun on me, you better shoot me.” The men angrily left the altercation, but the man approached the defendant again a few hours later. The man swelled out his chest, again verbally threatening the defendant. The defendant immediately shot the man once with a shotgun he had in his truck. The man later died from the wound.

The Decision

The defendant was charged with murder, and he argued at trial that the jury should know that he was entitled to a crime prevention defense. According to the defendant, there was sufficient evidence to show that the man he shot was going to commit an aggravated assault against him, and part of his motivation to shoot was to prevent the aggravated assault from happening. Once the trial court denied this request and ultimately found the defendant guilty, he appealed.

The higher court considered the circumstances around the shooting and determined that the defendant was, in fact, eligible for this crime prevention defense. The man had threatened the defendant on multiple occasions and had previously punched him that same evening. The man’s posture also led the defendant to believe that he was preparing himself to physically harm the defendant. Given these facts, it was fair for the court to at least consider whether or not the defendant was entitled to this crime prevention defense.

Because the trial court had not instructed the jury on this defense, the higher court ruled that the trial was unfair to the defendant. The court thus reversed the guilty conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

Have You Been Charged with a Violent Crime in Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we are ready and able to defend you against the toughest criminal charges in the state of Arizona. Our experience, dedication and work ethic are unparalleled, and we are committed to getting you the results you need. For a free and confidential consultation, call us at 480-413-1499. You can also send us a message on our website to have your questions answered.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was found with a bloody knife, a store receipt, and a cell phone, which linked him to the murder of a store worker who was attacked in the store’s parking lot after refusing to hand over his car keys. The defendant argued that he acted out of self-defense at a bus station, but the DNA on the bloody knife and on the defendant’s clothes belonged to the store worker and no disturbance was reported at a bus station that night. Surveillance video showed the defendant getting out of the stolen vehicle to enter a store about an hour after the store worker was killed.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his backpack and argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The defendant reasoned that the backpack search was not a valid search incident to arrest since it occurred six hours after his arrest and that there were no other emergency circumstances justifying a warrantless search at that time. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress and the defendant appealed.

The Court’s Opinion

The trial court denied the motion to suppress for a few reasons. First, the lower court found that the searches conducted at the police station were routine inventory procedures related to booking and jailing a suspect. It also found that any items found inside the backpack would have been inevitably discovered because of the warrant police obtained at 10am after the defendant’s arrest. In this opinion, the appellate court explained that even evidence that has been illegally obtained by police can be admitted if the state demonstrates that the evidence would have inevitably been found due to lawful procedures. Here, the police officers lawfully seized and searched the defendant’s backpack incident to his arrest by placing all of the items into unsealed evidence bags before searching. Additionally, the police obtained a warrant authorizing the search of the defendant. Thus, because of routine inventory search and the warrant that would have inevitably led to the discovery of the incriminating evidence, the appellate court found that the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Have You Been Charged with a Serious Crime in Arizona?

If you have been charged with a crime in Arizona, the Law Office of James E. Novak is ready to help you with your case. Attorney Novak is a skilled criminal defense attorney who has hands-on experience in handling matters involving serious crimes, including Arizona felony offenses, weapons charges, and drug charges. To schedule a free consultation and to discuss your rights and remedies, contact the Law Office of James E. Novak at (480) 413-1499.