Arizona Criminal Procedure question

[Zigner]

Our OP needs to Google: AZ Statutes RULES OF PROCEDURE IN TRAFFIC CASES AND BOATING CASES

 

[DaveInPhx]

You are right, the ENTIRE section doesn't relate to felonies...
But the portion YOU are pinning your hopes on DOES.

Perhaps, though, you should read this:

Rule 1.1
Scope

These rules shall govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in all courts within the State of Arizona except that the Rules of Procedure in Traffic Cases shall continue to apply.


So, in any case, you are looking at the wrong section.

lol....I just got done reading that section. Funny.

Anyway, I still disagree with your assertion that 15(1)b applies only to felonies. The main reason is because other sections of rule 15 state what type of crime they apply to and 15(1)b does not.

Second, there is no other rule that deals with disclosure. If you assume 15(1)b only applies to felony cases you have to conclude there's no disclosure rules for misdemeanor cases and this would be absurd.

With regard to the bit about rules for traffic court, there are no traffic court rules for disclosure because this is handled by the rules of civil procedure, except if it's a criminal case.

 

[DaveInPhx]

100% correct.

Agreed. I'm talking about initial disclosure, not discovery.

 

[Zigner]

Well, Dave's got all the answers...
Let us know how it goes in court for you!

 

[DaveInPhx]

Well, Dave's got all the answers...
Let us know how it goes in court for you!

Look, I gave you solid reasoning and cited specific sections to back up my arguments. All you've done is tell me I'm wrong. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to point out where you get your idea that 15(1)b applies to felonies.

 

[Curt581]

Look, I gave you solid reasoning and cited specific sections to back up my arguments. All you've done is tell me I'm wrong. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to point out where you get your idea that 15(1)b applies to felonies.

You can't step back and see it, can you? It must be a 'forest for the trees' thing.

You posted a question, basically asking if your assumption was correct. Several people posted replies saying it wasn't. You proceed to argue the point, posting several statutes to prove your assumption correct. Others point out things saying that it isn't. Blah blah blah.

The question becomes... did you ask because you did not know and wanted accurate information, or did you ask because you wanted to see whether or not others knew?

At a certain point, people are just going to say, "Yeah. Go with it. Let us know what happens".

The overall issue as I see it: Do you really want to pin your entire defense on what may or may not be a procedural error by the prosecution... which hasn't even been made yet?

Wouldn't it make more sense to argue the case on the merits and facts?

 

[Zigner]

I'm going to take just one more stab at this...I'm feeling a bit peppy today.

Let's ASSume that what you are arguing is correct...

I'm willing to bet that your copy of the citation contains all of the elements you are seeking.

 

[DaveInPhx]

You can't step back and see it, can you? It must be a 'forest for the trees' thing.

You posted a question, basically asking if your assumption was correct. Several people posted replies saying it wasn't. You proceed to argue the point, posting several statutes to prove your assumption correct. Others point out things saying that it isn't. Blah blah blah.

The question becomes... did you ask because you did not know and wanted accurate information, or did you ask because you wanted to see whether or not others knew?

At a certain point, people are just going to say, "Yeah. Go with it. Let us know what happens".

The overall issue as I see it: Do you really want to pin your entire defense on what may or may not be a procedural error by the prosecution... which hasn't even been made yet?

Wouldn't it make more sense to argue the case on the merits and facts?

Maybe it was my approach to this that was confusing, or that I didn't catch right away the fact that in his/her first response, TheOccultist was talking about Discovery, not disclosure. Either way, my first few responses weren't about arguing my point as much as trying to get people to understand more clearly what my question was about.

Second, I don't consider repeated responses like "you're wrong" to be valid answers to my questions after I've demonstrated why I think I'm right. If someone sees something I obviously don't, why not cite it? It should be pretty easy to copy-n-paste if you're looking at it. I tried to coax this, but when people weren't getting the hint, I started to suspect that they didn't really know the answer to my question and instead of admitting this, they decided to try to save face with sarcastic responses to make it look like I was the a-hole for asking them to support their claims.

Finally, I'm not basing my entire defense on this possible procedural error (that has already happened, btw). I've got an entire defense strategy that is based on facts and evidence, but while I was reading up on court rules, I realized I hadn't received proper disclosure from the prosecution. So then I thought "hey, maybe I can use this to prevent the officers testimony." If it works, great, but it means I'll have to forgo my discovery request and just use the documentation I get directly from the police agency.

So in the end it doesn't look like anyone here has been able to answer my question, which is fine. I just don't understand acting like you know the answer and instead of citing your sources, you're going to be coy about it.

 

[Curt581]

but while I was reading up on court rules, I realized I hadn't received proper disclosure from the prosecution. So then I thought "hey, maybe I can use this to prevent the officers testimony."

I seriously doubt you'd ever be able to "prevent" an officer's testimony. In my state, at the very most, you'd force a continuance so the prosecutor could provide Discovery and for you to evaluate and/or refute it's contents. I suspect it's similar everywhere else.

 

[DaveInPhx]

I seriously doubt you'd ever be able to "prevent" an officer's testimony. In my state, at the very most, you'd force a continuance so the prosecutor could provide Discovery and for you to evaluate and/or refute it's contents. I suspect it's similar everywhere else.

This makes sense and I suspected it might be the case.

Thanks for the response. This is the information I was looking for.