Parent B came to the Law Office of Daniel Hutto after Parent A refused to modify a 5-year-old parenting plan and child custody agreement to allow week-on/week-off parenting time based on changes in the minor child’s life. After attempts to resolve short of formal litigation, Daniel Hutto represented Parent B at a custody modification hearing. The Court ruled for Parent B and the Law Office of Daniel Hutto on all requested positions. The Court modified both parenting times to week on/week off, increased child support owed to Parent B, and ordered Parent B to refrain from his hostile use of Our Family Wizard.
POST-DECREE MODIFICATION
A.M. v. M.F.
FC2012
Parent A came to the Law Office of Daniel Hutto for a Modification of Legal Decision Making and Parenting Time because Parent B had inappropriately touched one of the party’s teenage minor children. An Emergency Motion for Temporary Orders was granted and Parent B agreed with Counsel to indefinite supervised parenting time until a therapeutic interventionist or the Court ordered otherwise.
Parent B agreed to a psychosexual risk assessment and substance abuse evaluation prior to any change in parenting time. Additionally, the Court denied Parent B’s request to seal the case record after objection from Parent A and the Law Office of Daniel Hutto.
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE WITH CHILDREN
F.M. v. L.L.
FC2021 Divorce with Children
Parent B came to the Law Office of Daniel Hutto after being served with an Order of Protection and Emergency Motion for Temporary Orders filed and granted by Parent A to prohibit his contact with their 7-year-old minor child. Parent A petitioned for dissolution and relocation out of Arizona alleging physical, emotional, and verbal abuse by Parent B.
Following a joint order of protection hearing and an emergency temporary order hearing, the Court dismissed the order of protection and denied Parent A’s request to temporarily relocate with the mI htink yinor child and have Parent B’s parenting time supervised. Parent B was represented by the Law Office of Daniel Hutto against two different attorney’s representing Parent A at the hearing.
Additionally, Parent A and Parent B had several million dollars in community property and assets. After the initial victories for Parent B, the parties set several days of mediation and were able to successfully resolve all issues. The minor child remained in Arizona and Parent A and Parent B shared joint legal decision-making authority with equal parenting time.
MODIFICATION OF LEGAL DECISION MAKING AND PARENTING TIME
A.B. v. K.W.
FC2016 Family Law
Parent B had Law Office of Daniel Hutto take over representation against Parent A’s Petition to Modify Legal Decision Making and Parenting Time because of prior success in dismissing Parent A’s order of protection. Parent A was alleging that Parent B was physically and verbally abusing the parties minor child.
Parent A and Parent B involved the Department of Child Safety, DCS, and the child’s therapist and counselors. Following several temporary orders hearings and the appointment of a comprehensive family evaluation, Parent B’s supervised parenting time was removed at the urging of the Law Office of Daniel Hutto.
After over a year and a half of litigation a final trial was held on modification of legal decision making, parenting time and child support. Parent A continued to urge the court to supervise Parent B’s parenting time and to have sole decision making. The Law Office of Daniel Hutto was able to secure equal parenting time for Parent B and Final Decision-Making Authority for Parent B after trial. Additionally, the Court found Parent A’s positions unreasonable and ordered Parent A to pay Parent B’s attorney’s fees.
ORDER OF PROTECTION WITH MINOR CHILDREN
A.B. v. K.W.
FC2021
Parent B came to the Law Office of Daniel Hutto from another attorney specifically to assist with an order of protection hearing after the family law judge denied the request to hear the order of protection. Parent A had petitioned for both the order of protection and an emergency modification of Legal Decision Making and Parenting Time, but the Court split the hearings. The stakes couldn’t be higher as any failure in the order of protection hearing would have resulted in no parenting time for Parent B for one year.
Parent A was represented by counsel during the in-person order of protection hearing. Parent B was represented by the Law Office of Daniel Hutto and had dozens of exhibits and a detective with Mesa Police Department subpoenaed for testimony. Following Parent B’s presentation of evidence and witnesses and Parent B’s testimony, the Court dismissed Parent A’s order of protection in full.
Criminal Defense & DUI Case Victories
Below is a Small Sampling of our Successful Victories for Our Clients.
Past results are not a guarantee of future case success. Each case is different and has its own unique facts, circumstances, and defenses.
We’re Here to Help Defend You Against Any Criminal Charges
State v. G.R. CR 2021
Gilbert Municipal Court
Disorderly Conduct A.R.S 13-2904 Criminal Defense
Our client was charged with Disorderly Conduct following a confrontation with a neighbor where racial slurs were used against one another. The client admitted to calling the alleged victim several names, but denied raising his voice and alleged that the alleged victim used profanity and yelled first. Gilbert police did a poor investigation and failed to document several aspects of the case. Fortunately, many prior statements were clarified following a pretrial interview of the alleged victim after they agreed to speak with Daniel Hutto.
A trial by the judge was set after the State failed to extend a dismissal of all charges. At trial, the alleged victim appeared and testified as well as a 10-year veteran of the Gilbert Police Department. The client testified as well and provided his side of the story for the Court.
The Court, after a lengthy under-advisement ruling, found that our client’s comments, although inexcusable and indefensible, did not amount to fighting words or were likely to elicit a physical response from the alleged victim. The Court found our client NOT GUILTY of the charged offenses.
COMPLETE DISMISSAL
State v. R. B.
Scottsdale City Court
Disorderly Conduct A.R.S 13-2904 Criminal Defense
Mr. R. B was charged with Disorderly Conduct for disturbing the peace after allegedly engaging in a fight at Whisky Row nightclub in Old Town Scottsdale, Arizona. Mr. R. B. Was with friends and celebrating the Mayweather fight and had purchased a bottle service. A woman at the club was taking beers from Mr. R.B.’s table and a woman with R.B. confronted her. An argument between broke out and when Mr. R.B. tried to remove his friend from the argument bouncers grabbed him and threw him out of the club. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and for fighting.
Mr. R.B. was adamant that he was not involved in the argument and did nothing wrong. When Mr. R.B came to me he said the bouncers threw him to the curb and damaged his shoulder. Not surprisingly the Scottsdale Police did not get any other witness statements or surveillance video.
After a letter to preserve the surveillance video to Whisky Row was met with a notice that Whisky Row does not have a video surveillance system, we were able to get video surveillance from an adjacent club, El Jefe. The El Jefe video clearly showed Mr. R. B. Trying to separate those who were fighting and then immediately being put in a headlock by bouncers and tackled to the curb outside. After securing the surveillance footage and preparing a motion to dismiss the prosecutor voluntarily agreed to dismiss all charges against Mr. R. B.
NOT GUILTY/ ACQUITTAL AT TRIAL EXTREME DUI, GUILTY OF IMPAIRED DUI
State v. M.C.
Surprise City Court
DUI – Impaired to the Slightest Degree A.R.S. 28-1381A1
DUI – Driving with a blood alcohol concentration greater than .08 A.R.S. 28-1381A2
Extreme DUI – Driving with a blood alcohol concentration greater than .15 A.R.S. 28-1382A1 DUI Defense
Mrs. M.C. was charged with three counts of Driving Under the Influence, DUI, after being stopped for speeding. During the investigation, police found several open and unopened mini vodka bottles in Mrs. M. C.’s car. Following her arrest, officers requested she perform a breath test and she submitted to an Intoxilyzer 8000 test. However, the officer administering the Intoxilyzer 8000 was not certified to conduct the examination and used her supervising field training officer’s permit to get the Inboxilyzer to work.
Following an evidentiary hearing to suppress the breath test examination results because the examining officer was not certified, the trial court judge suppressed the results in part. The court ruled that the State could not proceed with the breath results pursuant to the admissible evidence statute, A.R.S 28-1383, because of the improper procedure.
At trial, the State could only proceed by calling an expert witness pursuant to Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert to try to interpret the results and try to convince the jury the results were reliable and accurate. The jury declined to do so and found Mrs. M.C. not guilty of the extreme DUI and DUI greater than .08, but did find her guilty of being impaired to the slightest degree.
SEX CONDUCT WITH A MINOR – REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR ELIGIBLE OFFENSE
State v. T.E.
Maricopa County Superior Court
Sex Conduct with a Minor, six counts, A.R.S. 13-1405A Criminal Defense
Mr. T.E. was charged with six (6) counts of Sex Conduct with a Minor for having oral sex and sexual intercourse with the seventeen-year-old daughter of his colleague. Mr. T.E. was 26 years old at the time and was arrested after self-reporting to his colleague that he was in a relationship with his daughter, after which his colleague called the police and Mr. T.E. was booked into 4th avenue jail.
Mr. T.E. told police that he did engage in sex with a minor, but maintained that he was severely intoxicated and had little recollection of the events. Mr. T.E. explained to officers that the girl and his friends had been texting him and invited themselves to his house. It was while at his house that Mr. T.E. and the girl spent the night together and had sex.
Following a psychosexual risk evaluation and extensive mitigation, Mr. T.E. accepted a plea agreement to an undesignated class six (6) felony. Although he was facing lifetime sex offender registration and decades of sex offender probation, Mr. T.E. was sentenced to only five years of probation with sex offender terms. Mr. T.E. was not required to register as a sex offender and did not serve any additional jail time or incarceration as a result of his plea.
Mr. T.E. has the opportunity after completing his minimum term of probation to have his felony offense designated a misdemeanor, removing all felony criminal history.
REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR, NO JAIL TIME
State v. J.M.
Mesa Municipal Court
Shoplifting A.R.S. 13-1805A1
Shoplifting A.R.S. 13-1805A5 Criminal Defense
Mr. J.M. was charged along with an accomplice for shoplifting at the Covered Wagon Antique Mall in Mesa, Arizona. Mr. J.M. took several items valued at less than $100. Unfortunately, when Mr. J.M left the store he got into the car of his accomplice who struck the store manager as the two fled the scene.
Mr. J.M. initially faced felony exposure for his actions but was only charged with misdemeanor offenses. While Mr. J.M’s case was pending he moved to China to continue working and teaching. Mr. J.M.’s initial plea offer required he plead guilty to Shoplifting and serve 30 days initial flat jail. Ultimately, Mr. J.M. was permitted to plead guilty by telephone and mail in a plea agreement to Shoplifting with 30 days of jail suspended upon his completion of community service. Mr. J.M. did not have to serve any additional jail or incarceration.
DISMISSED IN FULL FOLLOWING ADULT DIVERSION
State v. S.S.
San Tan Justice Court – Maricopa County
Assault A.R.S. 13-1203
Disorderly Conduct A.R.S. 13-2904 Criminal Defense
Mr. S.S. was charged with Assault and Disorderly conduct for getting into a fight with his father. Mr. S.S. was in his twenties living with his parents, but struggling with substance abuse. Following a verbal argument over the living arrangements, Mr. S.S. physically assaulted his father by punching him and pushing him to the ground. Mr. S.S.’s father called the police and he was arrested after the police viewed minor injuries to his father.
Initially, Mr. S.S. was not eligible for a diversion program because of a pending DUI offense he had with the same court. Ultimately, following negotiations on both cases, Mr. S.S. was permitted to complete an anger management diversion program and had his assault and disorderly conduct case dismissed in full.
RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY A CLASS 3 FELONY REDUCED TO CRIMINAL TRESPASS A.R.S. 13-1504
State v. D.C.
Coconino County Superior Court
Burglary in the Second Degree, Theft Criminal Defense
Mr. D.C. was charged with Burglary, a class 3 felony, and Theft, a class 6 felony after he entered the house of a few acquaintances and stole a bicycle as he left. Earlier in the night, Mr. D.C. was out partying in downtown Flagstaff and met up with some friends. Mr. D.C. went back with several of his friends to their house and continued drinking. Mr. D.C. was alleged to have taken a single-speed bicycle from the house when he left after everyone had gone to bed.
A roommate of the house called 911 when he came home to find his bike missing. Police searched the area and saw someone riding a bike, but were unable to stop him. Later, two eyewitnesses would claim they saw someone that matched Mr. D.C.’s description riding a bike that had the same brand and coloring as the stolen bike.
The police went to Mr. D.C.’s last known address and found the bike sitting outside his apartment. Mr. D.C. claimed he was given permission to take the bike, but did not know the name of who gave him permission. Ultimately, after the story of the eyewitnesses and the bike owner and other roommates fell apart, a plea agreement to a class 6 undesignated felony was negotiated.
At sentencing, Mr. D.C. was given eighteen months of standard probation, no jail time, and given permission to immediately leave the state to return home to California. Additionally, although Mr. D.C. had over five prior misdemeanor convictions the court agreed to leave the possibility of Mr. D.C.’s felony for criminal trespass to be reduced to a misdemeanor following probation.
DISMISSED IN FULL FALSE REPORTING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT A.R.S. ….
State v. A.T.
Highland Justice Court – Maricopa County
False Reporting To Law Enforcement Criminal Defense
Ms. A.T. was arrested for false reporting to law enforcement after she was questioned about her business and its affiliation with a towing company and its owner. The police alleged that Ms. A.T.’s mobile home and apartment building parking enforcement company was improperly towing cars and referring business to Ms. A.T.’s husband’s tow company.
Ms. A.T. admitted to police that she was married to the owner of the particular towing company, but denied being an employee. The police were questioning Ms. A.T. because a tenant who had his car towed alleged he was not in violation and had the necessary parking sticker. When police arrived to gather information, he alleged the tow company agreed to reduce their storage fees but refused to issue a tow receipt. This fact led the officer to investigate further and link Ms. A.T. to the towing company.
The officer alleged he had prior contact with the towing company and Ms. A.T. had identified herself as an employee and the tow company and parking enforcement company shared the same business address. Following months of court, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss Ms. A.T.’s case in full after tax returns and other business documents were provided to show the legitimacy of both businesses and no collusion.
SECOND OFFENSE SUPER EXTREME DUI REDUCED TO NO CONTEST FIRST OFFENSE DUI
State v. A.N.
University Lakes Justice Court – Maricopa County
Super Extreme DUI – Second DUI Offense DUI Defense
Ms. A.N. was charged with Super Extreme DUI, A.R.S. 28-1382(A)(2) while she had her felony Aggravated DUI pending in a separate Maricopa County Court. M.S. A.N. was contacted following a crash and investigated for DUI. Following her arrest and release to a family member, a blood alcohol test showed her BAC was greater than .300 within two hours of driving and she was cited for Super Extreme DUI greater than .20.
Ms. A.N. was facing a mandatory 180 days of jail as a result of her pending Aggravated DUI offense if convicted. However, Ms. A.N. pleads no contest to the court to all charges, including the most severe Super Extreme DUI. At sentencing, the court placed Ms. A.N. on summary probation without any direct monitoring of any kind and sentenced her to a minimum of fourteen (14) days in jail with work release privileges.
Ms. A.N. was facing 180 days in jail with no possibility of home detention had she been convicted of second offense Super Extreme DUI. Instead, Ms. A.N’s no-contest plea allowed her to receive 176 fewer days of jail and simultaneously set up her felony Aggravated DUI for a reduced sentence.
176 DAYS OF JAIL AVOIDED ON FELONY AGGRAVATED DUI PASSENGER IN CAR UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE A.R.S. 28-1383
State v. A. N.
Maricopa County Superior Court
Aggravated DUI, 4 counts A.R.S. 28-1383(A)(3) DUI Defense
Ms. A.N. was charged with four counts of Aggravated Dui for having a blood alcohol concentration greater than .20 with her minor child in the car. Ms. A.N. was stopped by police for extreme weaving within her lane and several traffic violations. Upon contact, officers found A.N. extremely intoxicated and her two-year-old son in the back seat.
Ms. A.N. was arrested and booked into jail after her husband was called to pick up their son. A blood test revealed that Ms. A.N. had a blood alcohol concentration greater than .300 and she was charged with felony aggravated DUI.
Unfortunately, Ms. A.N. received a second DUI within a few months of her first offense and had her aggravated DUI pending along with the misdemeanor super extreme DUI. Ms. A.N. was facing 180 days in jail as a mandatory minimum sentence for the second offense super extreme DUI pursuant to A.R.S. 28-1382(A)(2). Following some tactical plea negotiations and mitigation, Ms. A.N. was extended a plea offer to an undesignated felony Aggravated DUI with only fourteen (14) days in jail with one (1) day credit and work furlough/release on the remaining days.
All remaining counts of felony aggravated DUI for driving with a passenger under 15 were dismissed. Finally, since Ms. A.N. had two cases for DUI pending she was able to get credit for her 56 hours of mandated substance abuse counseling and treatment on both cases and maintained her ability to have her felony reduced to a misdemeanor following her term of probation.
SEX CONDUCT WITH A MINOR – REDUCED TO CHILD ABUSE AND MISDEMEANOR ELIGIBLE OFFENSE
State v. S.M.
Maricopa County Superior Court
Sex Conduct with a Minor, three counts, A.R.S. 13-1405A Criminal Defense
Ms. S.M. was charged with three separate counts of sexual conduct with a minor over the age of 15 for having oral sex with the seventeen-year-old son of her friend while at a pool party. Ms. M.S.’s friend looked through text messages on her son’s phone and her phone statement and saw an unusual amount of messages between Ms. S.M. and her son. When confronted, the son admitted to his mother that he and Ms. S.M. engaged in oral sex.
As a common part of sex crime investigations, a confrontation call was made to Ms. S.M. by her friend. The confrontation call was a phone call made by the friend to Ms. M.S. for the sole purpose of getting her to confess in part or whole to the crime while investigators listened in and recorded the call. During the confrontation call, Ms. M.S. denied having oral sex with the son but said he did tell her they had oral sex and she didn’t completely deny the event. Ms. M.S. later claimed she was too drunk to have any recollection of what occurred. However, based on some of the statements and text messages from Ms. S.M. she was arrested.
Following a Psycho Sexual Risk Assessment, settlement conference, motion to remand, and deviation request, the State attorney finally agreed to reduce the charged offenses to two counts of Child Abuse, a class six undesignated felony with an agreement not to recommend lifetime sex offender registration. At sentencing, Ms. S.M. was placed on sex offender probation and the judge declined to make Ms. S.M. register as a sex offender, even after her friend showed up at sentencing to call Ms. S.M. a “monster” and “predator” demanding she register as a sex offender to warn others of her dangerousness.
Ultimately, Ms. S.M. is able to have her current offense reduced to a misdemeanor following probation and did not serve any jail time. Furthermore, Ms. S.M. voluntarily suspended her Arizona Board of Nursing License and will be applying for reinstatement three years following her consent agreement.
SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR – REDUCED TO 3 MONTHS IN JAIL, NO FELONY RECORD & NOT NEEDING TO REGISTER AS SEX OFFENDER
State v. M.O. CR 2020
Maricopa County Superior Court
Sex Conduct with a Minor, 15 counts, A.R.S. 13-1405A Criminal Defense
Our client came to the Law Office of Daniel Hutto following allegations of sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old victim. Our client was 21 years old and knew the victim through his family and admitted to his sexual acts during a confrontation call with his wife and the victim’s father. Our client participated in a polygraph examination and psychosexual risk assessment that showed he had no prior sexual offenses and was not sexually deviant.
Daniel Hutto was able to secure a plea agreement to probation on several counts as a low-level felony that can become a misdemeanor. Our client’s acceptance of the undesignated felony offenses avoided sex offender registration and mandatory prison if convicted following a trial. After several hearings on mitigation, Defendant was sentenced to 6 months in jail with 2 for 1 credit after the state and victim requested one year of jail time.
Our client was released following 3 months of jail, did not have to register as a sex offender, and avoided forever felony offenses. Our client came to the Law Office of Daniel Hutto facing over 2 years in prison for fifteen (15) counts of sexual conduct with a minor.
DISMISSED ALL CHARGES AT TRIAL
State v. J.R. CR 2021
Casa Grande City Court
Disorderly Conduct
Interference with Judicial Proceedings Criminal Defense
Our client was charged with disorderly conduct and interference with judicial proceedings after being attacked by his daughter’s mother at a parenting time exchange. Our client called 911 himself and locked himself in his car with his son. The police arrived and sided with Mother even though the client has physical injuries on him from being scratched and hit by the mother. Additionally, the police sided with Mother because it was supposed to be her day to pick up their son, but had been making suicidal comments and told our client to just take their son because she didn’t want to live anymore.
Casa Grande police failed to write a supplemental report to document the mother’s statements on the scene which resulted in the Axon body camera being destroyed. Defendant‘s attorney at the Law Office of Daniel Hutto filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Arizona v. Youngblood. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but at trial after the victim appeared to testify the State reconsidered its opposition to dismissal and dismissed all charges against our client.
The Law Office of Daniel Hutto was confident they would have prevailed in defending the charges to the judge but were pleased the State dismissed all charges at trial.
MULTIPLE FELONIES REDUCED TO A MISDEMEANOR AVOIDING JAIL TIME AND A FELONY RECORD
State v. S.L. CR2021
Yavapai Superior Court
Trafficking in Stolen Property, Fraud, Fraud Schemes Criminal Defense
Our client was charged with Trafficking in Stolen Property and Fraud for selling his girlfriend’s old car without her approval or consent. Our client utilized a friend to notarize the title and sell the vehicle. Our client had a prior history of assault and disorderly conduct, but no felony history. Our client’s charges resulted in serious issues for employment as he was a registered nurse.
Our client was extended a probation plea with a class 6 undesignated felony offense and given the opportunity to argue for immediate misdemeanor designation at sentencing. Following a lengthy sentencing, and mitigation hearing the Court agreed with Daniel Hutto and immediately designated the client’s offense a misdemeanor and placed him on simple supervised probation. Our client avoided a felony altogether, or any jail time, and was able to keep his employment and licensing certificates.
REDUCED TO DUI TO THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE WITH 1 DAY IN JAIL AND ALL OTHER CHARGES DISMISSED
State v. J.W. TR2022
Extreme DUI, DUI, Assault, and Disorderly Conduct DUI Defense
Our client was involved in a road rage altercation with another driver. Following a roadside dispute where both drivers shoved one another and exchanged words, our client was investigated for a DUI offense. Our client admitted to consuming alcohol and participated in field sobriety tests. Following his arrest, our client’s breath alcohol was tested using an Intoxilyzer 8000 and showed an alleged .161 and .182, and .181 concentration.
The Law Office of Daniel Hutto was able to secure a plea agreement to DUI, impaired to the slightest degree after issues related to the breath print ticket and three breath samples. Our client was given credit for 1 day in jail versus the 30 days jail he was facing and all remaining counts were dismissed, including the assault and disorderly conduct charge.
REDUCED TO TRAFFIC SCHOOL WITH NO POINT FROM CRIMINAL SPEEDING / EXCEEDING 20 MILES PER HOUR OVER POSTED SPEED LIMIT ARS 28-701.01
State v. C.C.
Arcadia Biltmore Justice Court – Maricopa County Criminal Defense
Mr. C.C. was charged with criminal speeding for exceeding the posted speed limit on Indian School road by more than twenty (20) miles per hour. Mr. C.C. and his friends were leaving an escape room game in Scottsdale, Arizona, and headed home when Mr. C.C.’s friend accelerated to over eighty (80) miles per hour on a posted 40-mile-per-hour road. Mr. C.C. tried to keep up and both were pulled over by Scottsdale Police Officers.
The Scottsdale Police officer that pulled over Mr. C.C. says he made a U-turn after Mr. C.C. passed and saw a moving radar speed of approximately 62. Mr. C.C. was honest with the officer and told him he was going around 60 miles per hour, which the officer said was similar to what he observed.
NOT GUILTY OF FOUR DUI COUNTS – SUPER EXTREME DUI, EXTREME DUI, DUI .08, AND DUI IMPAIRED
State v. B.A
Scottsdale City Court
Super Extreme DUI – A.R.S. 28-1382A2
Extreme DUI – A.R.S. 28-1382A1
DUI – Impaired to the Slightest Degree A.R.S. 28-1381A1
DUI – Driving with a blood alcohol concentration greater than .08 A.R.S. 28-1381A2
Our client DUI Defense
Mr. B.A. was in Old Town Scottsdale celebrating passing a professional exam when he was locked out of his friend’s apartment. Mr. B.A. and his friend had been drinking heavily and his friend, unfortunately, called the police because B.A. was banging on the apartment door. When officers arrived Mr. B.A. was found sitting in the driver’s seat of his car, the car was on, the AC was running, and the car was in park.
Mr. B.A. explained the mix-up and that he was just charging his phone and smoking a cigarette trying to find another place to stay or call his friend.
Regardless, the aggressive Scottsdale Police arrested Mr. B.A. after he voluntarily did field tests and he admitted to drinking heavily. Mr. B.A. was arrested under the theory that he was in actual physical control (APC) of the car even though there was no actual driving. He was also charged with disturbing the peace.
At trial, the State presented a case that because Mr. B.A. had a BAC of .204 and was seated in a running car’s driver’s seat that he was guilty of super extreme DUI. At trial, Mr. B.A. testified and subpoenaed his friend to testify, the same friend that called the cops. After two days of testimony, a strong cross-examination, and a body camera video that showed Mr. B.A. in the car, but also his phone charger and cigarette lighter, the jury found Mr. B.A. not guilty of all DUI charges. The judge later found B.A. guilty of disturbing the peace, but 180 days of jail was avoided on the second offense Super Extreme DUI acquittal.
NOT GUILTY ALL CHARGES DUI BAC OVER .08 AND DUI IMPAIRED
State v. Y.S.
Phoenix Municipal Court
DUI – Impaired to the Slightest Degree A.R.S. 28-1381A1
DUI – Driving with a blood alcohol concentration greater than .08 A.R.S. 28-1381A2 DUI Defense
Ms. Y.S. was driving in the early morning hours after picking up a co-worker when she was involved in a traffic accident with a motorcycle. The motorcycle rider and his passenger sustained minor injuries and the police were called. Ms. Y.S. admitted to police she had consumed a single drink earlier in the night and voluntarily performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) field test.
Her test showed 4 of 6 clues and she was arrested. A blood examination alleged her alcohol concentration was .082.
At trial, a motion in limine was filed to preclude the jury from hearing about any crash or injuries that occurred because the motorcyclist and his rider did not appear at trial. The jury never heard a crash occurred and the blood alcohol test was attacked successfully because the officer administering the one-field sobriety test was not properly trained and testified that he observed two wrong clues leaving Ms. Y.S. with only 2 of 6 clues. The blood testing machine was also attacked as unreliable and providing errors and high calibrations in the past. The jury found Ms. Y.S. not guilty of all charges!
This website is for informational purposes only. Using this site or communicating with the Law Office of Daniel Hutto through this site does not form an attorney/client relationship. This site is legal advertising.
