Case Title: State v. Miller

Citation: 108 Ariz. 441, 501 P.2d 383

Docket Number: 2282

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1972-09-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
108 Ariz. 441 (1972) 501 P.2d 383 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Walter Gene MILLER, Appellant. No. 2282. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. September 27, 1972. *442 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by William P. Dixon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by James H. Kemper, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of guilt to the crime of first degree (night-time) burglary (§ 13-301 et seq., A.R.S.) following a jury verdict in the Superior Court for the County of Maricopa. Defendant received a one to three year sentence. We are called upon to determine: The facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. On 20 August 1970, at approximately 10:46 p.m., Officer Kent Keller, an off duty Phoenix policeman, was riding in a private automobile driven by one Larry Robinson. Officer Keller was showing Robinson the beat Keller patrolled in southwestern Phoenix. As the two approached the area of 19th Avenue and Buckeye Road they noticed something unusual occurring within the enclosed area of the Gulf Service Station on the southeast corner of the intersection. Officer Keller testified at the trial that he "observed two subjects standing in an interior area of a closed service station." Because of the actions of these individuals and the fact that the station appeared to be closed, Officer Keller and Robinson circled the block and returned to the station at a very slow rate of speed so that they might further observe the actions of the two individuals. Officer Keller testified that he saw defendant Fullbright take a tire from an overhead rack within the fenced enclosure of the service station and throw it over the eight foot high chain link fence where it was caught by defendant Miller. Officer Keller's testimony indicates he was able to get a clear look at both of the defendants' faces, in spite of the fact that it was night, because of the numerous lights in the station area. It appears from the record that during this time Officer Keller and Robinson were within 30 to 75 yards of the defendants. While continuing to observe the defendants, Officer Keller instructed Robinson to cross the intersection where there was a standing pay telephone located. Using this phone, Keller called the police department. During this time Officer Keller observed the defendants as they ran across the *443 street. Both were carrying a tire under each arm. While Officer Keller was still at the phone booth, a police squad car approached and Keller joined the officers within. Together they pursued and arrested the defendants who, after leaving the tires at a Standard-Chevron Station across the street from the Gulf Station, fled on foot from the vicinity when the police car arrived. Walter Gene Miller and Cosby Lorenzo Fullbright were charged by information filed in the Superior Court of Maricopa County with first degree burglary. The case proceeded to trial where the two defendants were represented by different lawyers. On direct examination during the trial, Officer Keller testified, over defense objection, that he observed three apparently new tires each bearing a Gulf emblem in a stack of tires at the Standard-Chevron Station: Officer Donovan H. Stovall of the Phoenix Police Department testified concerning the Gulf Station: Though requested by the defendant, the trial court refused to instruct the jury regarding the inferences that could be drawn from the State's failure to introduce the tire evidence at the trial. The defendant, in addition, requested the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of forcible trespass and petty theft. The trial court also denied the latter request. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of first degree burglary. Fullbright was granted probation and apparently chose not to appeal. PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE It is defendant's contention that the tires were crucial to his attempt to discredif the eyewitnesses against him. He argues that the physical presence of the tires were necessary in order for the jury in the courtroom to measure and feel them so they could make an accurate judgment as *444 to the possibility of throwing such tires over the eight foot chain link fence. Defendant argues therefore that the trial court erred when it failed to grant the following requested instruction: We approved this instruction in State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184, 393 P.2d 274 (1964) and defendant relies heavily on that case. In the Willits case, supra, the defendant was convicted of attempting to explode dynamite in a dwelling house with intent to injure, intimidate or terrify his former wife. He contended that "the dynamite was in such a condition that it could not be exploded." State v. Willits, supra, at 187, 393 P.2d at 276. The dynamite in question had been destroyed by officials at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base at the request of the State for safety reasons. It is clear in the Willits case that the explosives were crucial to the defendant's argument that the dynamite could not be exploded. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the tires were destroyed or were not available had the defendant so requested. State v. Green, 103 Ariz. 80, 436 P.2d 899 (1968). Further the defendant has not shown that the tires would be helpful to his defense. The size and weight of automobile tires are within the knowledge of a jury and they would be able to draw a valid conclusion from the evidence as to whether the defendant actually threw the tires over the fence with or without the presence of the tires in the courtroom. Also we have stated: LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the defendant could be found guilty of the crime of the allegedly lesser included offense of forcible trespass as defined in § 13-711 A.R.S.: And the lesser included offense of petty theft is defined as follows: Burglary is defined as: *445 A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if reasonably supported by the evidence. State v. Randolph, 99 Ariz. 253, 408 P.2d 397 (1965); State v. Ross, 107 Ariz. 240, 485 P.2d 810 (1971); Rule 272, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. We cannot agree, however, that the evidence supported an instruction on the two offenses as lesser included offenses. As to forcible trespass, the Arizona burglary statute does not contain the common law requirement of breaking and entering. It only requires that a person enter a building with the intent to commit theft or any felony. State v. Rood, 11 Ariz. App. 102, 462 P.2d 399 (1969). Arizona's forcible trespass statute provides that the entry must be accompanied by force or violence. As burglary can be committed without the use of force of violence, forcible trespass is not a lesser included offense. State v. Hatten, 106 Ariz. 239, 474 P.2d 830 (1970). Neither is theft or petty theft a lesser included offense of burglary. As we have stated: "Burglary and theft are two separate and distinct acts. To constitute burglary it is not necessary that theft be committed." State v. Hutton, 87 Ariz. 176, 178, 349 P.2d 187, 188 (1960). Judgment affirmed. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.