State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran
232 Ariz. 528
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On April 9, 2009, Officer Joe Sanchez stopped William Moran after visually estimating Moran was driving 50 mph in a 35 mph zone; officer was trained to estimate speed within ±5 mph.
- During the stop, officer detected odor of alcohol, watery/bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and Moran gave inconsistent identification; HGN testing showed 4 of 6 impairment cues; Moran refused a portable breath test and was arrested.
- Moran was tried and convicted by a jury on four aggravated DUI counts: two based on A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(1) (revoked-license aggravators) and two based on § 28-1383(A)(2) (two prior DUI convictions from Nevada).
- Pretrial, Moran moved to suppress evidence from the stop/arrest and moved to dismiss the allegations about his Nevada prior DUI convictions, arguing Nevada convictions might not constitute Arizona DUI equivalents.
- The trial court denied suppression and the motion to dismiss priors; on appeal the court affirmed the stop and arrest but held the Nevada prior convictions did not strictly conform to Arizona DUI elements and vacated the two § 28-1383(A)(2) convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of traffic stop (reasonable suspicion) | Officer Sanchez had reasonable suspicion based on his trained visual speed estimate (50 mph in 35 zone). | Moran argued dashboard video undermined the officer’s speed estimate and thus the stop lacked reasonable suspicion. | Stop was lawful: trial court credited officer's training/estimation; video not in evidence and did not refute the estimate. |
| Probable cause for arrest | Officer had probable cause based on odor of alcohol, HGN results, watery eyes, slurred speech, and identification confusion. | Moran argued evidence showed only alcohol consumption, not impairment. | Arrest lawful: totality of circumstances provided probable cause to believe impairment to slightest degree. |
| Use of Nevada DUI convictions to enhance under A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(2) | State argued Nevada DUI convictions substantially correlated with Arizona DUI and qualified as prior convictions for enhancement. | Moran argued Nevada statutes differ (timing of consumption, affirmative defense, and different "actual physical control" element) so they do not necessarily constitute Arizona-equivalent convictions. | Vacated convictions under § 28-1383(A)(2): Nevada convictions could be consistent with scenarios that would not meet Arizona elements (timing/affirmative defense; different actual-physical-control standard). State failed to prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Request to reduce vacated felonies to lesser-included misdemeanors | Moran requested reduction to misdemeanors for the vacated aggravated counts. | State implicitly opposed reduction; argued same conduct already produced misdemeanor convictions under § 28-1383(A)(1). | Denied: double jeopardy bars punishment for lesser-included offenses when defendant already convicted of same misdemeanor offenses arising from same conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carlson, 228 Ariz. 343 (discussing review of suppression hearing evidence) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- State v. O’Meara, 198 Ariz. 294 (traffic stop reasonable suspicion) (officer need only reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle)
- State v. Teagle, 217 Ariz. 17 (deference to trial court credibility findings) (trial court credibility and factual findings are deferred to on appeal)
- State v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232 (probable cause in DUI context) (probable cause assessed on probabilities, not proof of actual intoxication)
- State ex rel. Romley v. Galati (Petersen), 195 Ariz. 9 (prior convictions as elements) (prior qualifying convictions are elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Crawford, 214 Ariz. 129 (comparing foreign convictions) (foreign conviction must include every element required by the comparable Arizona offense)
- State v. Colvin, 231 Ariz. 269 (pretrial rulings on out-of-state DUIs) (trial court may rule pretrial whether an out-of-state DUI is equivalent)
- Peak v. Acuña, 203 Ariz. 83 (insufficient evidence effect) (reversal for insufficient evidence functions as implied acquittal and precludes retrial)