Title: State v. Jacobs
Citation: 382 P.2d 683, 94 Ariz. 211
Docket Number: 1342
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: June 13, 1963

94 Ariz. 211 (1963) 382 P.2d 683 The STATE of Arizona, Plaintiff, v. Foster JACOBS, Jr., Defendant. No. 1342. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Division. June 13, 1963. Charles N. Ronan, Maricopa County Atty., Robert F. Owens, Deputy County Atty., for State of Arizona, plaintiff. Johnson, Roberts &amp; Bluemle, by William H. Wood, Phoenix, for defendant. BERNSTEIN, Chief Justice. This is in answer to a question in a criminal case certified to this Court by the Superior Court of Maricopa County. Defendant was convicted of forgery. Motion for a new trial has been argued and taken *212 under advisement. The defendant has not been sentenced. The question is before this Court pursuant to Rule 346, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., which reads in applicable part: The question certified is as follows: An officer testified that defendant was arrested at 11:00 A.M. Another officer testified that on the same day, but without reference to the time, a "mug shot" of defendant together with "shots" of five other persons were shown to a state's witness for the purpose of identifying the defendant. The "mug shot" had the defendant's number at the bottom of the full face and profile shots. It is conceded that the "mug shot" was a police photograph of the defendant taken at the time of a previous arrest. The question of the witness and his answer in the presence of the jury was: The jury did not have an opportunity to view the picture. Reference to a police photograph of a defendant by a state's witness in a criminal trial has been held prejudicial error as implying a prior criminal conviction. In Commonwealth v. Blose, 160 Pa.Super. 165, 50 A.2d 742, an officer called by the state testified he had used a "penitentiary photograph" in apprehending the defendant. The court said: And again in Hatchet v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 43, 293 F. 1010 an officer testified as follows: The Court went on to say that the word "gallery" would undoubtedly be understood by the jury to mean "rogues' gallery" and held: We have recently held that the record of prior crimes is admissible only for impeachment purposes and The state contends, however, that the term "mug shot" does not imply a previous criminal record. The simple answer to this is found in Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1961: We cannot say that the jury would have understood the words to have anything but their usual meaning and the words "mug shot" are equally as prejudicial as a "penitentiary photograph" or a picture taken from a "gallery." The state next contends that even though the picture was in fact taken on a previous arrest the jury could reasonably believe that the picture was taken at the time of defendant's arrest, developed, printed and shown to the victim the same day. The state contends that it would be speculation on the part of the jury to arrive at a conclusion that the photograph was taken at a previous arrest. The argument that evidence is not prejudicial because the jury could only arrive at the truth through speculation perverts the basic function of the jury system to arrive at a true and just verdict. The testimony of the officer using the term "mug shots" was prejudicial error which requires a new trial. UDALL, V.C.J., and LOCKWOOD, J., concur.