 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lopez9/15/2004
court held that, "because the prior convictions to which the defendant[ ] agreed to stipulate constitute elements of the charged offense, [he was] not entitled to a bifurcated trial," 195 Ariz. 9, 16, 985 P.2d at 497. The defendant was not entitled to have the fact of his prior convictions kept from the jury. See also State v. Newnom, No. 2 CA-CR 2002- 0447, 2004 WL 1891497 (Ariz.Ct.App. Aug.25, 2004).
7 Although Lopez did not ask for a bifurcated trial, based on Galati he was not entitled to keep from the jury one of the elements of the crime charged. See Ariz. R.Crim. P. 19.1(b), 17 A.R.S. (where prior conviction is element of crime defendant is not entitled to bifurcated trial). This case is more like Galati than Leonard. In Leonard, the defendant had not sought to stipulate to an element of the charged offense, but, rather, he had sought to stipulate to prior convictions that were to be used for sentence enhancement purposes.
Page 1 2 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|