Whether in the Phoenix area, or anywhere in Arizona, per A.R.S. §13-2923 "Stalking" occurs when a person "knowingly" or "intentionally" engages in a course of conduct which would cause a "reasonable person" to fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family. In addition, the person being stalked has to actually testify that they were in fear for their safety or their immediate family's safety. A "course of conduct" means maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats (whether expressed or implied) to that person on two (2) or more occasions over a period of time. It does not matter how short that period of time is. In addition "immediate family member" includes a spouse, parent, child, or sibling, or any other person who regularly resides within the person's household or resided in a person's household within the past six (6) months. This has been construed to include a current or former roommate who is not related by blood or marriage.
If a reasonable person was placed in fear for their life (in other words they are afraid of "death"), then this can be charged as a class three (3) felony. A first offense class three (3) felony can range in punishment anywhere from probation with zero (0) days in jail up to one (1) year in jail; or prison from two (2) years to eight and three-quarters (8.75) years in custody. If the person has one (1) allegeable historical prior conviction then the "prison only" range is three and one half (3.5) years to sixteen and one quarter (16.25) years of incarceration. If the person has two (2) allegeable historical prior convictions, then the "prison only" range is seven and one half (7.5) years to twenty-five (25) years of incarceration.
If the person placed in fear does not fear death, but is only in fear for their safety, then this can be charged as a class five (5) felony. A first offense class five (5) felony carries a range of punishment of probation with zero (0) days in jail up to one (1) year in jail; or prison from six (6) months to two and one-half (2.5) years in custody. If the person has one (1) allegeable historical prior conviction, then the "prison only" range is one (1) year to three and three quarters (3.75) years of incarceration. If the person has two (2) allegeable historical prior convictions then the "prison only" range can is three (3) years to seven and one half (7.5) years of incarceration.
There are numerous defenses to Stalking charges. The specific defense that is placed into the statute includes "Constitutionally Protected Activity". For example, if you are protesting outside of a politician's office, you cannot be accused of Stalking. Probably the most famous example of this is when Cindy Sheehan (mother of a deceased soldier) camped out in front of President George W. Bush's driveway for a month and a half (1 2 months) during the summer of 2005. Other defenses would include that you were merely in the same area without knowledge that the alleged victim was nearby (i.e., "Lack of Knowledge"). For example, you could be shopping at a local Wal-Mart or attending a football game at Sun Devil Stadium without realizing the person was anywhere nearby. The State must prove that you were deliberately stalking the person, and that your actions would place a "reasonable person" in fear for their safety (not just that the other person is paranoid).
The "Common Defenses", which may apply in any criminal case are numerous and diverse. One of the most common defenses we encounter is a "Miranda Rights Violation". In Arizona, the standard of whether any inculpatory statement (i.e., a statement which tends to admit guilt) is admissible into evidence is based upon a "Voluntariness" standard. If we can demonstrate that the police coerced you (i.e., intimidated or tricked you) into making a confession or inculpatory statement, or that they did not properly read you your Miranda Rights, then we can suppress those statements and any evidence gathered as a direct result of those statements. In addition, "Denial of Right to Counsel" is another common defense which is often raised. This occurs when a suspect is in custody and requests to speak to their lawyer, but is denied and questioning continues. In certain cases (such as DUI) it is mandatory that you speak to an attorney as soon as possible in order to determine your rights before your body burns away the evidence of your presumably low alcohol content. Other defenses include challenging the validity of any search warrant, or whether there were any "forensic flaws" during the investigation of your case. This could include exposing flawed procedures regarding blood, breath, and urine testing; fingerprints analysis; DNA testing; ballistics; gunshot residue testing; computer analysis / "cloning hard drive" procedures; forensic financial accounting reviews; etc. Lastly, one of the most common defenses is exposing sloppy or misleading police reports which include everything from misstatements, false statements, flawed photo line-ups and inaccurate crime scene reconstruction.
It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®), with the most Certified Criminal Law Specialists of any AV® rated Arizona Law Firm, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of it's lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Attorneys are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Attorneys know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 1-888-822-6867, or click here to contact us now.
If your case involves Accident & Injury, Family & Divorce or Motorcycle Injury please visit our companion firm: Cantor Simon PLLC - www.cantorsimon.com
1-888-8CANTOR 480-858-0808
602-307-0808 623-877-8509
Calls are answered 24 hours a day
Broadway Road & 101 Freeway
2141 E. Broadway Road, Suite 220
Tempe, Arizona 85282
Dismissed |
04/24/08 |
Aggravated DUI, Aggravated DWI |
Dismissed |
04/14/08 |
Aggravated Assault w/Gun |
Not Guilty |
04/04/08 |
DWI Only(.092 Breath) |
Not Guilty |
03/25/08 |
DWI (.099 Breath) |
Not Guilty |
03/24/08 |
Aggravated DUI, Aggravated DWI |
Our most recent successes of more than 200 victories.
April 15, 2008
John Chester Stuart had one of the best defense…
