Opinion ID: 1168327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: does williams apply?

Text: The difference between first degree burglary and second degree burglary is the possession of a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument, or explosives by defendant during the burglary. A.R.S. §§ 13-1507(A), -1508(A). The state contends, as did the court of appeals, that even though the jury had been incorrectly instructed as to whether petitioner was armed, the jury was properly instructed as to the burden of proof so that defendant was not prejudiced. We do not agree. Under the instruction in this case, the jury did not have to find that the defendant used the gun in such a manner as to indicate his willingness to use it as a weapon. Befford, 148 Ariz. at 510, 715 P.2d at 763. To convict defendant of first degree burglary, the jury only had to find that the defendant at some time had the gun in his possession for whatever purpose. We believe Williams is on point. In Williams, we noted the following: [T]he erroneous jury instruction precluded the jury from even considering the defendant's willingness or present ability to use the stolen knife as a weapon. Even though it might be said that the defendant was armed when he followed the husband back into the house while holding the butcher knife, under the instruction given the jury did not have to reach that question. The instruction allowed the jury to find that the defendant was armed as soon as he picked up the knife, regardless of the reason for which the knife was taken. The result is the same as if the trial court had directed a verdict on that element of the offense, which is impermissible. 154 Ariz. at 368, 742 P.2d at 1354. The instruction in the instant case mirrors that in Williams. The fact that the trial court correctly instructed the jury as to the burden of proof for first degree burglary does not distinguish this case from Williams, or blunt the impact of the specific instruction allowing the jury to find that theft of a gun after entering the premises is sufficient to find first degree burglary. We do not believe Williams is distinguishable from the instant case.