The Case, Court, and Citation
State v. Dubois, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0358 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. One, July 29, 2026) (memorandum decision), appeal from Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2024-007054-001.
Note: This is a memorandum decision under Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c). It is not for official publication and is not binding precedent — it may only be cited as that rule allows. We’re covering it because it’s a useful, current example of how Arizona appellate courts analyze mistrial motions and “harmless error” in DUI trials.
What Happened in State v. Dubois?
A trooper saw Christopher Dubois driving at a high rate of speed and tried to pull him over. Dubois stopped briefly, then sped away. The trooper pursued and eventually stopped him. Once in custody, the trooper noted signs Dubois was intoxicated, and the State collected a blood sample.
Dubois was charged with four counts of aggravated DUI (all class 4 felonies) and one count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle (a class 5 felony). Before trial, the State dismissed two of the aggravated DUI counts, and the defense successfully suppressed the blood test results after arguing the trooper had interfered with Dubois’s right to an independent test.
What Happened at the Six-Day Trial?
The parties stipulated that Dubois had a suspended license, knew it was suspended, and had two prior DUI convictions within the past 84 months — leaving intoxication as the only real factual dispute for the jury. The State played a redacted clip of the trooper’s body-worn camera. On redirect examination, the prosecutor asked the trooper whether the redacted clip included the “slurred speech” observations, then began to ask whether those observations were “on the video that is not being presented” — a question the defense argued improperly gestured toward the suppressed blood-test issue.
Does Asking a Jury to “Disregard” a Question Fix the Problem?
Dubois’s attorney objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing the question invited the jury to speculate about excluded evidence and violated his right to a fair trial. The trial court took the motion under advisement and immediately instructed the jury to disregard the State’s last question. The next day, applying the two-factor mistrial test from State v. Bailey, the court denied the mistrial motion, finding the question would not have influenced the jury’s deliberations or changed the verdict.
The jury convicted Dubois of unlawful flight and two counts of aggravated DUI (suspended license; two prior DUIs within 84 months). He was sentenced to concurrent four-month prison terms, two years of probation, and had his driver’s license revoked.
What Was the Legal Issue on Appeal?
Dubois argued the trial court should have granted a mistrial because the prosecutor’s question referenced suppressed evidence and invited the jury to speculate — supposedly resulting in a verdict based on improper considerations rather than the evidence actually admitted at trial.
Can a DUI Conviction Survive an Improper Prosecutor Question? How the Court Reasoned It Through
Why Did the Court Call the Evidence “Overwhelming”?
Because Dubois objected at trial, the appellate court reviewed the issue for harmless error — meaning the conviction stands unless the error affected the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the trial record supported the convictions independent of the improper question:
- An open, mostly empty wine bottle in the car, plus a receipt for the same wine purchased about 45 minutes before the stop
- A strong odor of alcohol, watery and bloodshot eyes, dilated pupils, and slurred speech observed by the trooper
- A second officer’s testimony that Dubois appeared dazed, lethargic, and had slow cognitive response, coordination, and balance
- Expert testimony connecting these indicators to alcohol impairment
- Testimony that the trooper drove a marked patrol car with lights, siren, and a functioning loudspeaker, and that Dubois accelerated away after being told to pull over
Why Didn’t the Improper Question Require a New Trial?
The Court acknowledged that prosecutors have a duty to guard against eliciting inadmissible or prejudicial statements, and that the “best practice” is never to raise a suppressed issue at all. But here, the trial court recognized the problem immediately, instructed the jury to disregard the question, and later gave a general instruction to disregard any answer tied to a sustained objection. Arizona courts presume jurors follow those instructions, and Dubois offered no evidence the jury didn’t. Combined with the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the Court found no reversible error.
Does Arizona Require a Warrant or Consent for an Independent Blood Test After a DUI Arrest?
This case doesn’t decide that question directly, but it’s the backdrop: Dubois’s blood test results were suppressed before trial because the trial court found the trooper’s communications had unreasonably interfered with Dubois’s right to obtain an independent test. That’s a separate, well-established protection in Arizona DUI cases — and it’s exactly the kind of suppression issue that can still surface awkwardly at trial, as it nearly did here.
What This Means for You If You’re Facing a DUI Charge in Arizona
Three practical takeaways come out of State v. Dubois:
- Winning a suppression motion is a real victory — but it isn’t the whole case. Dubois won suppression of his blood test, yet he was still convicted because the State had substantial other evidence of intoxication. A strong defense strategy has to address every piece of evidence, not just the test results.
- Prosecutorial mistakes don’t automatically undo a conviction. Appellate courts weigh the strength of a curative instruction and the overall evidence before granting a new trial. That means the trial-level fight — objecting immediately, getting a clear instruction on the record, and building your own record for appeal — matters enormously.
- Every DUI case turns on the specific facts. Field observations, physical evidence like receipts or open containers, and officer/expert testimony can be enough to convict even without chemical test results. An experienced Arizona DUI attorney needs to scrutinize all of it, not just the science.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is State v. Dubois a published, precedential decision?
No. It’s a memorandum decision under Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c), not officially published, and citable only as that rule allows. It doesn’t set new binding precedent, but it reflects how Division One judges are currently applying mistrial and harmless-error standards in DUI appeals.
Can a DUI conviction be reversed because the prosecutor asked an improper question?
Sometimes — but not automatically. Arizona applies a harmless error test. If a curative instruction was given and the remaining evidence of guilt is overwhelming, an appellate court can affirm the conviction anyway, as it did here.
What is a motion for mistrial in an Arizona DUI case?
It’s a request that the trial judge stop the proceeding because something — often an improper question or remark — made a fair verdict impossible. Arizona courts use the two-prong Bailey test to decide whether the remark called the jury’s attention to improper matters and whether it likely influenced the verdict.
Does a suppressed blood test disappear entirely from a DUI trial?
Suppression generally bars the State from introducing that evidence or eliciting testimony referencing it — but as this case shows, careless questioning can still brush up against a suppressed issue and trigger an objection and mistrial motion.
What evidence can Arizona use to prove intoxication without a blood or breath test?
Officer observations (slurred speech, odor of alcohol, bloodshot or watery eyes, dilated pupils), physical evidence like open containers or receipts, and expert testimony linking those signs to impairment can be enough on their own to support a conviction.
Charged With DUI in Phoenix or Anywhere in Maricopa County?
Every DUI case is different, and the difference between a conviction and a dismissal often comes down to exactly the kind of detail at issue in State v. Dubois — what evidence gets suppressed, what happens at trial, and whether every objection is preserved correctly. Gordon Thompson has practiced DUI and criminal defense exclusively in Arizona for 47 years and handled more than 6,000 cases in Maricopa and Pinal County courts.
Learn more about Arizona DUI penalties, how a strong DUI defense strategy is built, or review the all-inclusive flat-fee agreement that covers a case from the first MVD hearing through trial.
Call or text (602) 467-3680 for a free consultation — available by phone, video, or in person.