6/14/16 In Simpson v. Miller, Nos. 1 CA-SA 15-0292, 1 CA-SA 15-0295 (Consolidated), two defendants are charged with multiple counts of sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age. They are being held in custody under the provisions of 13 A.R.S. § 3961.A, which provides in part:
- A person who is in custody shall not be admitted to bail if the proof is evident or the presumption great that the person is guilty of the offense charged and the offense charged is one of the following:…
…3. Sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age.
The defendants made motions to have their trial courts hold an evidentiary hearing to determine by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or any person. The trial courts denied the defendants motions and the defendants then filed special actions in the court of appeals challenging that denial.
On June 14, 2016, the Arizona court appeals, division 1, relying on a United States Supreme Court case, United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), held the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires such a hearing.
The court said:
In Salerno, the Supreme Court held that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 comported with due process,481 U.S. at 741, 747-52, but cautioned that “[i]n our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” Id. at 755 (emphasis added). Concluding that the Act “narrowly focused on a particularly acute problem in which the Government interests are overwhelming,” the Court emphasized three important aspects of the legislation: (1) it applied only to those arrested for a specific group of extremely serious offenses, a category of persons that Congress specifically found to be far more likely to commit dangerous acts in the community post-arrest; (2) it required the government to demonstrate probable cause that the person committed the charged offense; and (3) it required the government to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, in a “full-blown adversary hearing,” that “no conditions of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or any person.” Id. at 750 (emphasis added).
The court went on to say that since 13 A.R.S. § 3961.A , the Arizona statute under which the defendants were being held, did not provide for a hearing to determine if “no conditions of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or any person,” to be constitutional the trial court must grant such a hearing. The court of appeals remanded the cases back to the trial courts for such hearings.
The case may be found at:
http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2016/1CA-SA15-0292.pdf
If you’ve been charged with DUI or another criminal offense, getting help from an experienced and knowledgeable lawyer is one of the best things you can do for your case. Gordon Thompson has been practicing criminal and DUI law since 1979, and has used his vast experience to help countless people charged with DUI and other criminal offenses get the best result. Call Gordon Thompson now, 24/7, so he can put his many years of experience to use and help you get the best result for your DUI or criminal case.
