Case Title: State v. Stow

Citation: 109 Ariz. 282, 508 P.2d 1144

Docket Number: 2346

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1973-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
109 Ariz. 282 (1973) 508 P.2d 1144 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert Edward STOW, Appellant. No. 2346. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. April 16, 1973. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Louis A. Moore, Jr. and Ronald R. Crismon, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Henry L. Zalut, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from verdicts and judgments of guilty to three counts of robbery, § 13-641 A.R.S., with concurrent sentences of 6 to 10 years on each count; and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, § 13-249 A.R.S., with concurrent sentences of 5 to 6 years on each count; but to be served consecutively to the sentences on the three robbery counts. Defendant's motion for new trial was denied as was his motion to vacate judgment and sentencing. While we are asked to determine ten questions on appeal, we believe that the answer to one is dispositive of this matter: Was it error for the court to refuse to give defendant's requested instruction concerning the in-court identification? The facts necessary for a determination of the matter on appeal are as follows. On 12 September 1970, three men wearing women's wigs and holding guns entered the "O.T. Liquors" store at Third Avenue and Roosevelt in the city of Phoenix, Arizona. At the request of one of the men, later identified as the defendant Robert Edward Stow, Paul H. Wielins, an employee of the *283 store, emptied the cash register of approximately $150.00 including 4 marked bills and gave it to the robbers. One of the robbers took a credit card, checkbook, and five dollars from Mrs. Wielins. In the interim, Rose Ann Johnson entered the store and ten dollars was taken from her. The robbers drove off in a blue colored Ford Mustang. A witness outside the store reported the license number to the police. Descriptions of the robbers were taken by the police. The automobile was traced to one Anthony Patricella with the result that the residence (a duplex) of Anthony Patricella was placed under surveillance until a search warrant could be obtained. While observing the residence, Officer Brunette observed the defendant at the residence and near the suspect car. Later Detective Shugart arrived with a search warrant for Mr. Patricella's half of the duplex and found among other items the stolen credit card. They then entered the other half of the duplex and found and arrested the defendant Stow. Mrs. Wielins was shown several photographs, one of which was that of the defendant, but misidentified the defendant and did not identify the defendant in court. Rose Ann Johnson was unable to identify the defendant. At the trial, after three preliminary hearing dates at which time Mr. Wielins had an opportunity to observe the defendant in custody, the defendant was positively identified as the robbery by Mr. Wielins. The jury returned verdicts of guilty to robbery and assault with a deadly weapon as to each of the three victims Mr. and Mrs. Wielins and the customer Rose Ann Johnson. After motions for new trial and to vacate judgment were denied, the defendant appealed. At the hearing before the trial to suppress any in-court identification, Mr. Wielins testified as follows: Defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to refuse to give defendant's requested instruction No. 1 which reads: This instruction is a correct statement of the law as stated in State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 453 P.2d 951 (1969). In *284 that case we discussed the procedures to be followed by the trial court as follows: While the trial court followed the proper procedure in holding a hearing on the challenge to the proposed in-court identification, it failed to give the identity instruction which, if requested as was done here, is mandatory under Dessureault, supra, and for that reason the matter will have to be reversed for new trial. Reversed and remanded for new trial consistent with this opinion. HAYS, C.J., and DONOFRIO, P.J., concur.