Arizona Defendant Unsuccessfully Argues Prosecution Improperly Used Accomplice’s Statements During Trial

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his conviction and sentence for transportation of a dangerous drug for sale. The defendant was originally subject to a traffic stop while he was in the passenger seat of a vehicle. The car’s driver had a conversation with the police officer, and after this conversation, the officer found methamphetamine in the vehicle’s tires. On appeal, the defendant argued that the court improperly allowed the jury to consider the driver’s conversation with the police officer during trial. The court considered this argument but ultimately denied the appeal, determining that even if the court did make an error, the defendant had not proven it negatively affected the outcome of his case.

The Charges

The State charged the defendant with transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, a Class 2 felony. The charges were based on an incident during which officers stopped a car after they noticed the driver commit a traffic violation. One of the officers began speaking with the driver, who answered questions nervously and claimed she did not know the passenger (the defendant)’s name. After this conversation, the officer conducted a search of the car and found methamphetamine in the vehicle’s tires.

Statements Between the Driver and the Officer

A jury found the defendant guilty, and on appeal, he argued that the court made a mistake when it allowed the State to present statements by the driver to the officer. The statements were irrelevant, said the defendant, and were only prejudicial to his case. The State, on the other hand, argued that the statements were relevant because of their effect on the officer before he searched the vehicle.

In this case, concluded the court, whether the officer was suspicious was not actually at issue in the case, especially since the driver ended up consenting to the search. Even if the court admitted the statements erroneously, though, there was no reason to believe that the statements harmed the defendant during trial. There was plenty of other evidence, like the patrol car recordings and fingerprint evidence, that supported the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of transportation of a dangerous drug for sale.

Because the error did not significantly affect the outcome of the case, then, the higher court denied the defendant’s appeal. His conviction for transportation of a dangerous drug for sale would therefore remain in place.

Do You Need a Maricopa County Criminal Defense Lawyer in Your Corner?

If you or a loved one has been criminally charged in Arizona, give our office a call to talk through a defense strategy that works for you. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we take pride in our informed, aggressive approach to every case that we take on. If you haven’t yet spoken with an experienced Maricopa County criminal defense lawyer, call us today for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible.