Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 30-32 Indecent Exposure Victories

State v. Mr. C (DMC 15410) – Animal Abuse – Reduced to 5 Days in Jail – Phoenix City Court (Case No. 5306674):  Mr. C was seen by people pulling his SUV over on the side of the road, retrieving a cat from the passenger side door, and throwing it over a fence.  The cat the scrambled off and hid underneath a car and was almost struck by Mr. C as he left the scene.  The witnesses then took the cat to the Humane Society and had it nursed back to health at a cost of almost $900.  Mr. C was ultimately tracked down and charged with Animal Cruelty.  We were able to present evidence that the cat dug his claws into Mr. C’s arms while he was attempting to remove it from the car, and that it then ran away after he flailed his arms due to the pain.  He had not abandoned the cat, nor had he tried to harm the cat.  Because of the strength of the witness’s testimony, the State was seeking a significant amount of jail time.  Although he was facing up to six months in jail, we were able to reduce the ultimately sentence to only five days.

State v. Mr. H (DMC 15877) – Felony Tampering with Evidence – Dismissed (with Classes) – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-138288):  Mr. H had been arrested for misdemeanor DUI and had been taken to the police station.  After the police had drawn two vials of his blood and packaged them both in a single box, they informed Mr. H that he could get an Independent Test of his blood if he wished to challenge the State’s results.  He was also told that the second vial would be available for him to get tested.  Mr. H became confused, and thought that the box with both vials of blood contained his own sample to take with him.  He put the box in his pocket and left with it when he was released from the police station.

Ultimately, the police contacted him and informed him that he had taken their samples of blood.  They claim that he had denied that he had taken the blood samples, and then they produced videotape evidence showing that he had.  He was ultimately arrested and charged with felony Tampering with Evidence.  We were then hired by Mr. H to represent him on the felony, and not on the underlying misdemeanor DUI (in which he already had an attorney).  Ultimately, we were able to have the Prosecutor agree that this was a mistake and that they could lose at trial.  They then allowed the case to be Dismissed upon successful completion of classes for alcohol consumption by Mr. H.

State v. Ms. E (DMC 15445) – Felony Arson and Felony Criminal Damage – Dismissed – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-151423):  Ms. E had suffered from PTSD and was on various medications.  She had taken two of those medications together and went to sleep, when she awoke was panicked because she thought her dog was locked inside of the car.  She smashed the car in order to get into it, and realized her dog was not there.  She then called her husband, who informed her that he had the dog.

During this ordeal, she had somehow set the car on fire.  We were able to show the prosecutor that she was having a medical episode, and that her husband (the co-owner of the car) did not wish for charges to be pressed.  Ultimately, the State agreed to Dismiss charges against Ms. E.  Originally, she was facing a large amount of prison time.

State v. Mr. F. (DMC 15474) – Felony Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia – Teaching License Reinstated at Board Hearing – Arizona Department of Education (Case No. C-2017-697R):  Mr. F had been charged two years prior with Felony Possession of Marijuana and Felony Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  We were able to negotiate a resolution that involved classes, which, upon successful completion, would result in a Dismissal of all charges.  As Mr. F was a school teacher, he was informed that pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 15-534.02, that he would lose his license for a period of five years.  We requested a hearing in front of the Arizona State Board of Education, which was ultimately granted.

During the hearing, we provided numerous witnesses that showed Mr. F was doing a good job as a substitute teacher.  We also showed that he was not an immoral person, and the reason that he had used marijuana was due to back pain.  His lack of a medical marijuana card was merely an oversite.  He had since obtained a medical marijuana card, which allowed him to legally use the drug.  We also showed that Mr. F worked with special education children, some who had Downs Syndrome who were non-verbal.  Because of his knowledge of sign language, and his specialized training, he was a very valuable teacher.  Ultimately, the Committee agreed to Reinstate Mr. F’s Teaching License.

Indecent Exposure DismissedState v. Mr. V (DMC No. 13381) (Mammoth Justice Court CR2015-023): Mr. V was inside of a convenience store when he asked if he could use a restroom.  He was pointed to the restroom by a female employee.  After he came out of the restroom, he bought a Monster energy drink at the cash register, and then he left. The person behind the register accused him of having his penis exposed while he was standing at the register.  He was then charged with Indecent Exposure per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1402.

There was no surveillance video in the store which showed this (due to the angles of the cameras line of sight), however, the Police still executed a search warrant at Mr. V’s home.  When we became involved in the case, we also determined that the alleged victim in the case did not want to continue seeking prosecution. Although there had been allegations out of other jurisdictions, the charge in the Mammoth Justice Court jurisdiction had “proof problems”.  Ultimately, the Prosecutor agreed with us and Dismissed all charges.

Felony Indecent Exposure, Felony Public Sexual Indecency & Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) Not Charged – State v. Mr. O (DMC No. 13977) (Goodyear Police Department DR2015-XXXXX):

Mr. O had been in a custody battle with his ex-wife for several years.  They had three children together.  During one of the custody exchanges, she called police on him claiming that he had molested a step daughter who lived with them.  She claimed that this molest happened 18 years prior.  Detectives had contact with the alleged victim, and she stated that she had been molested when she was 10 or 11 years old by Mr. O.

We became involved and contacted the Detective immediately.  We provided him with information regarding the custody battle of the three smaller boys, and were able to show that the mother was using this as leverage against him in their current custody battle.  We also provided information about the alleged victim (who is now 28 years old) showing that she did not have a character worthy of truth or veracity. Ultimately, when the Detective wished to bring in the daughter to talk to her about these things, they indicated she did not wish to proceed with prosecution.  The case was “inactivated” at that time.  The original charges of having Sexual Conduct with a Minor under 14, along with Indecent Exposure and Public Sexual Indecency (allegations of masturbation in front of a child,) would have carried a prison sentence that would have placed Mr. O in prison for the rest of his life.

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at Jury Trial/ INDECENT EXPOSURE – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 14233) Feb. 7, 2017 (Phoenix City Court No. 5066402): Mr. P was shopping in a Hobby Lobby on 46th Street and Cactus Road in Phoenix, Arizona. While he was shopping for some items, he squatted down to pull something off of the shelf. Due to his shorts and loose underwear, his testicle fell out of his shorts. There was a female customer nearby who did not see anything. However, the Assistant Manager saw what occurred from down the aisle way. She then had Security escort Mr. P out of the store and he was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department.

At Jury Trial we presented the video tape inside the store and showed exactly what happened. We were able to prove that this appeared to be an absolutely innocent occurrence, and that he was not attempting to expose himself to anybody. Although one of the Police Officer testified that Mr. P had told him that he intentionally exposed himself because the woman in the aisle had shown her breasts, the woman denied ever showing her breasts or even seeing Mr. P in the aisle way. The Jury deliberated and returned a verdict of Not Guilty!

2 COUNTS PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY and 2 COUNTS INDECENT EXPOSURE REDUCED to MISDEMEANOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT at JURY TRIAL AFTER EVIDENTIARY HEARING RE: CORPUS DELICTI RESULTED in SUPPRESSING DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS– Stave v. Mr. J (DMC No. 9696) (Mesa City Court No. 2009-069324): Mr. J was accused by two young children of driving around the neighborhood and exposing himself while engaging in masturbatory conduct. He was subsequently arrested on two counts of Public Sexual Indecency and two counts of Indecent Exposure. At trial, we were able to show at a Motion in Limine hearing that any alleged statements gather by Mr. J were improperly coerced by police. We are also show that they are no actual evidence he committed a crime without these statements. The judge agreed and suppressed all statements. Because of that development, the Prosecutor would most likely not win at jury trial, and therefore offered a plead to a single count of misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct (not for a sexual purpose).

 

NOT CHARGED/REDUCED | SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR (DCAC) NOT CHARGED/2 COUNTS FELONY INDECENT EXPOSURE REDUCED to MISDEMEANOR INDECENT EXPOSURE with PROBATION and ZERO DAYS in JAIL – State v. Mr. S. (DMC No. 9573) (Pinal County Attorney’s Office CR2009-01500): Mr. S. was a widower who worked at Home Depot with a friend whose daughter and grandkids needed a place to stay. He brought them in and let them stay for free and helped out with her children out of the kindness of his heart. The mother was a drug abuser who began to steal from Mr. S. When she was confronted, she then had her two children (ages 7 and 8) make various allegations against Mr. S. We became involved with Detectives and provided them with a copy of a polygraph in which Mr. S. passed with flying colors. Because of this, no charges were brought against Mr. S. for Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, Dangerous Crimes Against Children (DCAC) per Arizona Revised Statue 13-1405. However, charges were brought against him for Indecent Exposure under ARS 13-1402 to the two children because he had admitted to Detectives that while changing the kids would come into his room and had seen him naked.

During the pendency of Mr. S.’s case, we presented evidence that this was incidental and not done on purpose or for a sexual purpose. However, Mr. S. had admitted to Detectives that he could have been more careful, and he could have covered up quicker than he had. Therefore, we secured an offer to a simple Misdemeanor with Probation, no jail and Mr. S. did not have to register as a Sex Offender. The original allegations exposed Mr. S. to potentially the rest of his life in prison.

DISMISSED | CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC), SEX ABUSE (DCAC) and FELONY INDECENT EXPOSURE – State v. Mr. C. (DMC No. 9750) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2010-006442): Mr. C. was a 61 year old man who lived across the street from a family who had a 6 year old daughter. He would often babysit the 6 year old daughter, who had emotional problems. She would often take off her clothes and dance naked in his living room and he would have to tell her to stop and immediately take her home to her mother. She would also walk into his bathroom when he would be urinating and try and look at his exposed penis. The girl’s father (who did not live with her or the mother) heard accusations from his daughter that she had been touched by Mr. C. He immediately contacted the Goodyear Police Department and an investigation was conducted on Mr. C.

We became involved and allowed him to be polygraph and voice stress analyzed by the Goodyear Police Department. Although his results were “truthful” on the tests, they still felt he was not telling the truth. Approximately 3 years later, Mr. C. was indicted and charged (long after he thought this issue was closed). His charges included Child Molestation under ARS 13-1410; Sex Abuse under ARS 13-1404; and Felony Indecent Exposure under ARS 13-1402. During our investigation we exposed many flaws in the Detective’s reports, and some out right falsities attributing statements to Mr. C.’s adult children. We also filed a motion to have the Grand Jury indictment remanded based upon these flaws. Just prior to the date of trial, the Deputy Maricopa County Attorney in charge of the case filed a Motion to Dismiss all charges. Originally, Mr. C. would have spent the rest of his life in prison if he were convicted of these charges.

Call Now Button