.jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Gonzalez
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012-06-12 · cited 15×
In State v. Gonzalez, Alfredo Gonzalez appealed his conviction for transportation of dangerous drugs for sale after police stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger on Interstate 17, discovered 2.5 pounds of methamphetamine hidden behind the windshield, and noted inconsistencies in his and the driver’s accounts of their destination, relationship, and the vehicle’s condition. Gonzalez’s defense was that he had no knowledge of the drugs. At trial, the State introduced expert testimony that drug-trafficking organizations do not typically entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing couriers, which the court admitted over Gonzalez’s later challenge on appeal. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that such modus operandi evidence is not per se inadmissible drug-courier profile testimony and may be admitted when relevant to prove knowledge, with trial courts exercising discretion to weigh its probative value against unfair prejudice on a case-by-case basis, consistent with precedents such as United States v. Murillo.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Martinez
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012-06-12
In State v. Martinez, the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed Leonel Martinez's conviction for unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle under A.R.S. § 28-622.01 after he drove away during a 2007 traffic stop by Officer Shipley and was later identified by the officer. Martinez appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence—specifically that the pursuing officer had not activated emergency lights—and improper opinion testimony by Officer Fortune regarding Martinez's truthfulness about a reported stolen truck. The court affirmed the conviction and probation sentence, ruling that police vehicles are exempt from any emergency-lights requirement under A.R.S. § 28-624(C) because the statute focuses on willful flight from a marked official vehicle, and that any erroneous credibility testimony did not amount to fundamental error in light of jury instructions and Shipley's direct identification evidence.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Ramsey
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010-02-02 · cited 10×
In State v. Ramsey, the State of Arizona appealed a trial court order suppressing evidence obtained during an investigative stop of Kendall Lee Ramsey in a high-crime housing project area at 1:00 a.m., where officers observed Ramsey's evasive walking patterns, direction changes upon seeing the marked patrol car, and placing his hands in his pockets before complying with commands. The superior court had granted the motion to suppress, ruling that officers lacked reasonable suspicion when they approached Ramsey in their vehicle. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the totality of circumstances—including the high-crime location and late hour, Ramsey's repeated evasion of the officers, his hands-in-pockets gesture prior to any seizure, and his refusal to stop or remove his hands despite verbal commands—provided the officers with reasonable suspicion justifying the stop under the Fourth Amendment. The court determined the seizure occurred when officers physically contacted Ramsey after he ignored their authority, and it remanded the case for further proceedings on the possession of methamphetamine charge.
criminal lawcivil rights
State v. Martinez
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008-12-16 · cited 3×
The case involved the State charging Leonel Martinez with aggravated assault after he allegedly struck his ex-girlfriend, dislodging her permanent dental bridge and breaking an artificial tooth, which caused her pain and difficulty chewing. The trial court dismissed the indictment, ruling that a dental prosthesis is not a 'body part' under Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-1204(A)(3). On appeal, the court held that a prosthesis itself is not a body organ or part under the statute's plain meaning, as those terms refer to flesh and bone rather than artificial devices. However, the court also ruled that damage to a prosthesis may cause temporary but substantial impairment to an actual body part, such as the mouth's chewing function, making it a factual question for the jury. The court therefore reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
criminal law
State v. Keener
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2003-08-21 · cited 17×
The case involved the State's appeal from a trial court's grant of a motion to suppress cocaine found during a search incident to the arrest of defendant Troy Keener for driving on a suspended license, a misdemeanor, and drug possession. The trial court had ruled the arrest invalid because the traffic violation was not committed in the arresting officers' presence and collective knowledge of police could not establish probable cause for a misdemeanor. The appellate court reversed, holding that Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3883(A)(4) permits a warrantless misdemeanor arrest based on probable cause without the offense occurring in the officer's presence, and that the collective knowledge of involved officers may be considered to establish such probable cause just as in felony cases. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure