AZ Bar Criminal Law and Procedure 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine bars admission of:
- Only the illegally obtained evidence itself
- Evidence derived from an initial constitutional violation, including secondary evidence obtained as a result (Correct answer)
- All evidence obtained after any police misconduct
- Physical evidence but not witness testimony
Correct answer: Evidence derived from an initial constitutional violation, including secondary evidence obtained as a result
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine extends the exclusionary rule to secondary evidence that was discovered as a result of the initial constitutional violation.
Question 2: Voluntary intoxication is generally a defense in Arizona to:
- All criminal charges
- Strict liability offenses only
- Specific intent crimes where the intoxication negates the required mental state (Correct answer)
- All crimes requiring premeditation
Correct answer: Specific intent crimes where the intoxication negates the required mental state
Under Arizona law, voluntary intoxication may be offered to negate a specific intent mental state required for the offense but is not a general defense.
Question 3: Arizona law recognizes the affirmative defense of justification for use of deadly physical force when:
- The defendant reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary to protect against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, or robbery (Correct answer)
- The defendant was on their own property
- Any threat of force was made against the defendant
- The defendant was unable to retreat safely
Correct answer: The defendant reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary to protect against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, or robbery
A.R.S. § 13-405 permits use of deadly force when the defendant reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to protect against death, serious physical injury, or certain violent felonies.
Question 4: A criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment is analyzed using the factors from:
- Brady v. Maryland
- Barker v. Wingo (Correct answer)
- United States v. Salerno
- Strickland v. Washington
Correct answer: Barker v. Wingo
Barker v. Wingo established a four-factor balancing test for speedy trial claims: length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice.
Question 5: Under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must prove:
- That counsel made any error during trial
- That counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense (Correct answer)
- That the outcome of trial was unfair
- That counsel failed to file a timely appeal
Correct answer: That counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense
Strickland requires the defendant to show both that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have differed but for the errors.
Question 6: In Arizona, a person is legally insane if, at the time of the offense, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the person:
- Did not know what they were doing
- Did not know that the act was wrong (Correct answer)
- Was unable to control their conduct
- Was under the influence of a mental disorder diagnosed by a physician
Correct answer: Did not know that the act was wrong
Arizona follows a narrow insanity standard (M'Naghten-based) under A.R.S. § 13-502, requiring that the defendant did not know the criminal act was wrong due to a mental disease or defect.
AZ Bar Criminal Law and Procedure 3
The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine bars admission of: