Brown & Little, P.L.C. » Entries tagged with "supreme court of arizona"
Your "Privilege" to Drive
A lot of things will get your driver’s license suspended, canceled, revoked or refused here in Arizona. Not paying child support, getting too many tickets, not paying tickets, numerous things involving DUI short of an actual conviction, and convictions for various felonies and misdemeanors will all prevent you from driving. In Arizona, it’s practically impossible to get by without driving. Public transportation is generally inadequate in urban areas, and in rural areas, it’s basically non-existent. Cabs are very expensive. Most people I know who take advantage of buses or the light rail still have to drive a few miles to get to a park and ride. My clients who can’t drive are severely limited in where they can live and work. Not having a car leads to … Read entire article »
Filed under: Arizona Cases, DUI, Government Rants, MVD Hearings
Zealous Representation
In this post, Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice talks about how zealous advocacy will no longer be necessary in New York starting on April 1, 2009. Arizona attorneys haven’t had to zealously advocate for their clients for years. However, most criminal defense attorneys still promise in their fee agreements that they will zealously represent their clients, and there are still quite a few zealous advocates out there. I doubt that changing the language of our ethics rules had much of an effect. Interestingly, at least one Justice on the Supreme Court of Arizona disagrees. Every Arizona attorney is required to take a professionalism course. When I took the course, we watched a video of Chief Justice Ruth McGregor talking about the need to increase civility in … Read entire article »
Filed under: Ethics, Professionalism
Another Irritating Non-Lesser Included Offense
Felony flight isn’t the only crime with an irritating non-lesser included offense. In State v. Malloy, the Supreme Court of Arizona decided criminal trespass was not a lesser included offense of burglary. Burglary requires entering or remaining unlawfully with the intent to commit any theft or a felony, and criminal trespass just requires knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully. Although criminal trespass does contain the additional element “knowingly,” the Court in Malloy noted that “knowledge in the sense that the criminal act must have been voluntary” is implicit in all criminal offenses. However, the Court thought the word knowingly in the criminal trespass statute “must have some additional meaning” and decided that, in order to convict someone of criminal trespass, “the prosecution must prove not only that the defendant … Read entire article »
Filed under: Arizona Cases, Arizona Statutes
Recent Comments