STATE OF ARIZONA v. BRANDY DAWN KAUHN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. BRANDY DAWN KAUHN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0371 Filed September 18, 2017 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201501484 The Honorable Richard T. Platt, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Phoenix By Karen Moody, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Christopher Stavris Counsel for Appellant STATE v. KAUHN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Eppich concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Brandy Kauhn appeals from her conviction and disposition for aggravated driving with the presence of a drug or its metabolite in her body. For the following reasons, we affirm. Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[].” State v. Gay, 214 Ariz. 214, ¶ 2, 150 P.3d 787, 790 (App. 2007). In August 2014, an officer with the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office stopped Kauhn for broken taillights and weaving within her lane. Another officer took a sample of Kauhn’s blood, which tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Kauhn was convicted of aggravated driving with the presence of a drug or its metabolite in her body. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and imposed a three-year term of supervised probation. This appeal followed. Evidence of Affirmative Defense ¶3 Kauhn claims the trial court erred when it did not allow her to present evidence to support her affirmative defense that she was an Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) cardholder and that the amount of marijuana or its metabolite in her system was not sufficient to cause her to be impaired. See A.R.S. § 36-2802(D); Dobson v. McClennen, 238 Ariz. 389, ¶ 20, 361 P.3d 374, 378 (2015). “We review the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.”1 1 Kauhn asserts that the trial court violated her constitutional rights, but has not developed any legal argument concerning this 2 STATE v. KAUHN Decision of the Court State v. Villalobos, 225 Ariz. 74, ¶ 33, 235 P.3d 227, 235 (2010). Contrary to Kauhn’s claim, however, the record demonstrates that Kauhn was permitted to enter her AMMA card into evidence. Kauhn also was permitted to testify personally that she did not believe she was impaired, and to call other witnesses who observed her behavior prior to driving to testify that she did not seem impaired. ¶4 On appeal, Kauhn has not pointed to any evidence she wished to present that the trial court did not admit. Nor did she make any offers of proof concerning any excluded evidence. See Ariz. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). Because Kauhn has not demonstrated that the court actually excluded any proffered evidence in support of her affirmative defense, she has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion. Villalobos, 225 Ariz. 74, ¶ 33, 235 P.3d at 235. Disposition ¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Kauhn’s conviction and disposition. issue. We therefore deem it waived. See State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, n.9, 94 P.3d 1119, 1147 n.9 (2004). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
