Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Francis Kraps was indicted on two counts of child prostitution in violation of A.R.S. 13-3212(B)(2). During a pre-trial hearing, the superior court advised Kraps that if he was convicted, the court was required to impose an enhanced sentence between seven and twenty-one years’ imprisonment for each count without the possibility of early release, and that the sentences would be served consecutively. Kraps moved for reconsideration, asserting that because the “minors” involved were actually undercover police officers posing as sixteen-year-old girls, these sentencing provisions did not apply. The court held that “minor,” as used in A.R.S. 13-3212(D) and (G) means a person who is fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years of age, a peace officer posing as a minor aged fifteen to seventeen years, or someone assisting a peace officer by posing as a minor aged fifteen to seventeen years. Accordingly, the court vacated and reversed. View "State ex rel. Polk v. Hon. Campbell/Kraps" on Justia Law

Physicians are immunized from prosecution for providing written certifications under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). In this case, Defendant, a physician, certified a drug task force confidential informant (C.I.) for medical marijuana use. Defendant never reviewed the C.I.’s medical records from the preceding twelve months but falsely attested that he did so before providing the written certification authorizing medical marijuana use. Defendant was indicted on one count of forgery and one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices. The trial court dismissed the indictment, ruling that Ariz. Rev. Stat. 36-2811(C) immunized Defendant against prosecution on those charges. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal, holding that AMMA does not immunize conduct such as making a false statement in a written certification. Remanded. View "State v. Gear" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) and taken to a police station, where he was read an “admin per se” form. The form provided that “Arizona law requires you to submit” to breath, blood, or other bodily substance tests chosen by law enforcement. Defendant subsequently submitted to breath and blood tests and was subsequently charged with five counts of aggravated DUI. Defendant moved to suppress the test results, arguing that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because he did not voluntarily consent to the tests. The trial court denied the motion. Based on the parties’ stipulated facts, the court dismissed three counts and convicted Defendant on the remaining counts. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) Defendant’s consent was not freely and voluntarily given in this case; but (2) because the admonition was given in good faith reliance on precedent, exclusion of the test results was not required. View "State v. Valenzuela" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for operating a motorized watercraft while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OUI) and transported to an aid station used by the sheriff’s office. Defendant read an “OUI Admonishment” form, which provided that “Arizona law requires you to submit” to breath, blood, or other bodily substance tests chosen by law enforcement. Defendant agreed to submit to a blood draw and was subsequently charged with two counts of OUI and one count of extreme OUI. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the test results, arguing that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because he did not voluntarily consent to the test. The justice court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant did not consent to giving blood samples in this case. Remanded. View "Brown v. Hon. Crane McClennen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of conspiracy to commit sexual exploitation of a minor. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and juror misconduct. The trial court summarily dismissed Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) neither Appellant’s trial counsel nor his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance; and (2) even if Appellant properly raised his juror misconduct claim, he failed to show prejudice. View "State v. Kolmann" on Justia Law

In 1993, Defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and other charges. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison. Defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32, claiming that recent scientific findings concerning juvenile psychology and neurology were newly discovered material facts that entitled him to post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to present a colorable claim because the advancements in juvenile psychology and neurology offered by Defendant merely supplement then-existing knowledge of juvenile behavior that was considered at the time of Defendant’s sentencing. View "State v. Amaral" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. The State’s evidence supporting the conviction included testimony by a firearms examiner that a certain pistol had fired six shell casings found at the murder scene. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding Defendant from offering expert testimony that firearms examiners use subjective rather than scientifically rigorous methods in drawing conclusions from indentations on shell casings. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court in part and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in excluding the expert testimony where Defendant’s expert witness was qualified and his testimony would have been helpful to the jury in understanding the evidence. View "State v. Romero" on Justia Law

In this capital case, Defendant was indicted on two counts of first degree murder. Defendant indicated that he would accept a plea offer to natural life it were offered to him, but the State did not extend a plea offer. Defendant later filed a motion in limine seeking permission to introduce evidence of his willingness to accept a natural life plea offer at the penalty phase of his trial if he is convicted and becomes eligible for the death penalty. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant’s proposition did not evidence a true acceptance of responsibility for his actions. The Supreme Court vacated the order denying Defendant’s motion to permit introduction of evidence of his pretrial offer to plead guilty, holding that a capital defendant’s pretrial offer to plead guilty in exchange for a natural life sentence is admissible to demonstrate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility for the murder, a non-statutory circumstance. View "Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. Rosa Morz" on Justia Law

Petitioners were each charged with two counts of driving under the influence (DUI). Count two alleged a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 28-1381(A)(3), which prohibits driving a vehicle while there is cannabis (marijuana) or its metabolite in the defendant’s body. Both petitioners were medical marijuana cardholders. Petitioners were each convicted. At issue on appeal was whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) immunizes a medical marijuana cardholder from DUI prosecution under section 28-1381(A)(3). The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioners’ conviction, holding (1) the AMMA does not shield a medical marijuana cardholder from prosecution under section 28-1381(A)(3); but (2) the AMMA does but does afford an affirmative defense for those patients who can show that the marijuana or its metabolite was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment. View "Dobson v. Hon. Crane McClennen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted review in this case to resolve the conflict between Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-116, which requires that concurrent sentences be imposed on a defendant whose convictions stem from a single act, and Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-705(M), which requires that sentences imposed on a defendant convicted of certain dangerous crimes against children run consecutively even when the underlying convictions arise from a single act. Defendant was convicted of reckless child abuse (Count 1), child abuse (Count 2), and first degree murder (Count 3). The trial court convicted her to terms of imprisonment on all counts, with Count 2 to be served consecutively to the other sentences. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the sentence to make Count 2 concurrent, rather than consecutive, to the other sentences. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) under the rule that when statutes conflict and cannot be harmonized, the more recent statute applies, section 13-705(M) should govern in this case because it is more recent; and (2) therefore, the trial court properly ordered Defendant’s sentence on Count 2 to be served consecutively to her other sentences. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law