Skip to main content

38th Annual Criminal Year Seminar 2020




This one day seminar features presentations from all perspectives - judicial, prosecution, and defense - in addition to outstanding written materials prepared by The Honorable Crane McClennen (ret.).

Our elite faculty will be covering 50 of the most critical cases of 2019 and 2020 from the U.S. Supreme Court, Arizona Supreme Court and Arizona Court of Appeals. These cases will be analyzed for both prosecutors and defense counsel by our judges and other faculty members. And will cover criminal procedure, evidence, criminal substantive law, and constitutional issues.

This seminar provides a truly balanced presentation of the most important cases and issues of 2019 and 2020. 


Areas covered will include...

Constitutional Law

  • Fourth Amendment:
    • Fuentes, 452 P.3d 746 (Ct. App.): Does a father have a legitimate expectation of privacy in property in his son’s name; and is there a “protective sweep” exception to the warrant requirement in the absence of a contemporaneous arrest?
    • Lietzau, 439 P.3d 839 (Ct. App.): When may authorities search a person on parole or probation without a warrant or reasonable suspicion?
  • Fifth Amendment:
    • Champagne, 447 P.3d 297 (Sup. Ct.); Sallard, 451 P.3d 820 (Ct. App.): For a person in custody, when does Miranda not apply?
  • Sixth Amendment:
    • Champagne, 447 P.3d 297 (Sup. Ct.): For a person in custody, when does the right to counsel attach?

DUI and Traffic

  • 28–672(G); Patel, 452 P.3d 712 (Ct. App.): Is the statutory cap on restitution in this section constitutional?
  • 28–1321(A); Diaz, 435 P.3d 457 (Sup Ct.): Must the arrestee’s agreement to take a breath test be voluntary?
  • 28–1321(C) Implied consent: Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525; Havatone, 389 P.3d 1251 (Sup. Ct.); Havatone, 443 P.3d 970, (Ct. App.): When the driver is unconscious and therefore cannot be given a breath test, when does the exigent-circumstances rule permit a blood test without a warrant?
  • 28–1383(A)(3); Gomez, 437 P.3d 896 (Ct. App.): To be guilty of aggravated DUI with a person under 15 years of age in vehicle, must the driver know the person is under 15 years of age?
  • 28–1594; Duffy, 453 P.3d 816 (Ct. App.): What conduct gives an officer the authority to detain a person?

Criminal Substantive Law

  • 13–106; Reed, 456 P.3d 453 (Sup. Ct.): What happens when the defendant dies when the case is pending on appeal?
  • 13–203(B); Fuentes, 452 P.3d 746 (Ct. App.): When does transferred intent apply?
  • 13–407; Gentry, 449 P.3d 707 (Ct. App.): When is a defendant entitled to an instruction on use of physical force in defense of premises and use of force in crime prevention?
  • 13–502(A); Malone, 444 P.3d 733 (Sup. Ct.): When may a defendant introduce evidence demonstrating an ingrained character trait that rendered it less likely he or she acted with reflection and deliberation?
  • 13–804(A); Leal, 455 P.3d 327 (Ct. App.): Under what circumstances may a trial court order restitution under this section.
  • 13–1004(A); Burch, 449 P.3d 368 (Ct. App.): When there is an accomplice, when is a defendant entitled to a facilitation instruction?
  • 13–1801(A)(13); Dansdill, 443 P.3d 990 (Ct. App.): When the defendant takes money from a person who owes money to the defendant, when is that money considered property of another?
  • 13–1805(A)(5); Morris, 435 P.3d 1060 (Ct. App.): At what point does shoplifting occur?
  • 13–2321(A)(1); Hernandez, 439 P.3d 1188 (Ct. App.): What conduct constitutes participating in or assisting a criminal street gang?
  • 13–3407(H): Angulo-Chavez, 448 P.3d 296 (Ct. App.): Is this section allowing the court to determine the value of the dangerous drugs for the purposes of increasing the mandatory minimum fine constitutional?
  • 36–2802(D); Tagge, 442 P.3d 71 (Ct. App.): Does a “public place” include a vehicle parked in a commercial lot near a concert venue?
  • 36–2811(B) Jones, 440 P.3d 1139 (Sup. Ct.): Does the definition of marijuana include hashish?

Criminal Procedural Law

  • Rule 6.1(b); Johnson, 447 P.3d 783 (Sup. Ct.); Champagne, 447 P.3d 297 (Sup. Ct.); Duffy, 453 P.3d 816 (Ct. App.): When is the trial court required to grant a defendant’s request for new counsel or accept a defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel?
  • Rule 13.1(e); Martin, 446 P.3d 806 (Sup. Ct.): When the jurors are instructed on a greater and a lesser charge and are unable to reach a verdict on the greater charge, and the conviction is reversed on appeal, may the defendant be retried on the greater charge?
  • Rule 15.2(g); Johnson, 447 P.3d 783 (Sup. Ct,): When may a trial court order a defendant to sign a release for the defendant’s records, and when may it order the defendant’s attorney to disclose all written witness statements and not just summaries?
  • Rule 17; Robertson, 440 P.3d 401 (Ct. App.): Does the invited-error doctrine apply to plea agreements?
  • Rule 17.2(b); Nunez-Diaz, 444 P.3d 250 (Sup. Ct.): What is the extent of counsel’s duty to advise the defendant of the possible consequences of mandatory deportation?
  • Rule 17.4(a)(2); Mendoza, 455 P.3d 705 (Ct. App.): When does the trial court’s participation in plea advisement exceed what is permissible and thereby raise a presumption of judicial vindictiveness?
  • Rule 19.1; Murray (Claudius), 454 P.3d 1018 (Ct. App.); Murray (Easton), 451 P.3d 803 (Ct. App.); Dansdill, 443 P.3d 990 (Ct. App.): When do the prosecutor’s arguments exceed what is permissible?
  • Rule 21; Hernandez, 443 P.3d 33 (Ct. App.): When does the failure of the police to collect fingerprint evidence entitle the defendant to a Willits instruction?
  • Rule 24.1(c)(3); Rojas, 449 P.3d 1129 (Ct. App.): What level of juror misconduct entitles a defendant to a new trial


  • Rule 104(A); Lietzau, 439 P.3d 839 (Ct. App.): To what extent may an appellate court consider hearsay in determining whether trial court abused discretion in granting defendant’s motion to suppress)?
  • Rule 106; Champagne, 447 P.3d 297 (Sup. Ct.): To what extent is a subsequent statement admissible?
  • Rule 401; Champagne, 447 P.3d 297 (Sup. Ct.): To what extent may a defendant introduce evidence of a witness’s mental illness diagnoses and drug usage?
  • Rule 404(b); Gentry, 449 P.3d 707 (Ct. App.): To what extent may a trial court sanitize other act evidence?
  • Rule 404(c); Rose, 440 P.3d 999 (Ct. App.): Does this rule allow admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts the defendant committed as a juvenile?
  • Rule 501; Thompson (Vanders), 454 P.3d 1010 (Ct. App.): To what extent is the defendant entitled to discovery of the victim’s privileged mental health records?
  • Rule 602; Murray (Easton), 451 P.3d 803 (Ct. App.): To what extent must the witness have personal knowledge of the matter?
  • Rule 604; Murray (Easton), 451 P.3d 803 (Ct. App.): Does this rule require a “trained interpreter?”
  • Rule 701; Fuentes, 452 P.3d 746 (Ct. App.): To what extent must the witness’s testimony be based on the witness’s perception?
  • Rule 801(d)(2)(A); Griffith, 449 P.3d 353 (Ct. App.): When are social medial communications considered a party-opponent’s own admission?
  • Rule 803(5); Giannotta, ___ P.3d ___ (Ct. App. 12/26/19): When may you have multiple levels of statements?
  • Rule 803(6); Griffith, 449 P.3d 353 (Ct. App.): When are Facebook documents admissible?

The 38th Annual Criminal Year Seminar 2020 | April 17, 2020 This group includes the individual sessions of the program.

No products match your search criteria.

Please wait ...

Back to Top