Opinion ID: 1298515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Should respondent be suspended and, thus, summarily removed from office because of the nature of his crime?

Text: We do not consider possession of marijuana an insignificant offense by any means. We acknowledge, however, that possession of a small quantity of marijuana for personal use evidently has not been a rare occurrence in this country. The very fact that the legislature classified this crime in a manner permitting prosecution as either a felony or a misdemeanor indicates the crime is not of the highest order. Other jurisdictions hold a similar view. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 844 (West Supp. 1988) (possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use is a misdemeanor under federal law); and Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11357(b) (West Supp. 1989) (defining mere possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana as a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $100). [8] The fact that the legislature has given trial judges discretion to treat the matter as a misdemeanor even after charging and conviction of a felony also indicates the appropriate weight to be accorded this particular offense. We believe, also, the testimony of the Arizona Attorney General, who appeared as a character witness in favor of respondent, and the Maricopa County Attorney gives some indication that even among the highest ranks of this state's law enforcement officers the crime in question is not considered to be of great magnitude. We do not believe, for instance, the Attorney General would give character evidence for accused drug traffickers. Mere possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use has always been considered a crime malum prohibitum  wrong because prohibited by legislation. In re Chase, 299 Or. 391, 396, 702 P.2d 1082, 1086 (1985). The crime is a possessory offense, not a crime containing elements of fraud, deceit or dishonesty, and does not involve harm to a specific victim. Neither is [it] one involving illegal activity undertaken for personal gain. Id. at 402, 702 P.2d at 1089 (finding possession of a controlled substance for personal use rather than for trafficking or sale is not a crime of moral turpitude); see State v. Harvey, 275 S.C. 225, 226-27, 268 S.E.2d 587, 587-88 (1980) (possession of marijuana does not involve moral turpitude; court indicating, after exhaustive research, it had found no case holding mere possession of marijuana involved moral turpitude); see also Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1289, 103 L.Ed.2d 550 (1989) (even driving while under the influence classified as a petty offense). We agree with the views of the Oregon court: one who sells prohibited substances not only violates the law but does so for personal gain [and], by the same act, also directly contributes to physical harm to the purchaser. Sale and trafficking offenses meet the elements of moral turpitude. Possessory offenses do not. Chase, 299 Or. at 402, 702 P.2d at 1090. This court has already held possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use is not a crime involving moral turpitude. See State ex rel. Dean v. Dolny, 161 Ariz. 297, 778 P.2d 1193, 1195 (June 15, 1989). We are not prepared to say that every citizen of this state who has ever had possession of a small quantity of marijuana has committed a crime of moral turpitude. We take note also that the question of respondent's retention appeared on the ballot in the 1988 general election. The news media heavily reported on respondent's conviction. Despite this, a majority of the electorate voted to retain him in office. This decision of the electorate gives some perspective on the public's view whether the crime is per se one that, after final conviction, should result in summary removal from office. Thus, although we do not make light of the crime, we are not prepared to say that possession of a controlled substance such as marijuana, for personal use and not for sale, is inherently and in every case such a crime as should lead to suspension without salary followed by summary removal from office, consequent destruction of a career, and disqualification from ever again holding any judicial office in Arizona. [9] See Ariz. Const. art. 6.1, § 4. 2. Do the facts of this particular crime warrant summary removal? We are quite aware, of course, that summary removal would be, perhaps, the less controversial decision. There are those who will criticize us for not summarily removing a judge from office after conviction of illegal possession of a controlled substance. Doing the less controversial thing, however, is not part of either this court's constitutional duty or our oath as justices. We sit as a court of law, and providing justice, even for judges, is our mandate even if it causes controversy. It can be argued that summary removal from office for possession of marijuana is necessary for the good of the system, even if it is unjustly harsh on the one removed. Judicial disciplinary proceedings, however, are not punitive but are intended to protect the public interest by policing the profession and maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. Haddad, 128 Ariz. at 492, 627 P.2d at 223. We do not believe anything in the background or past life of this respondent, not even the conduct that led to his conviction, indicates that the public needs protection from him. Cf. Ackel, 155 Ariz. at 43, 745 P.2d at 101 (Feldman, J., dissenting) (disagreeing, as being too lenient, with majority's censure of justice of the peace for corruption  soliciting sexual favors from litigant). Although in the short run, confidence in the judicial system might be better served by summary removal of this judge, we conclude it is unwise to seek this type of temporary benefit. In the final analysis, public confidence in the judicial system will be maintained only if the public understands that we strive to provide justice under law, even when the court must stand firm against emotional reaction and transient surges in popular will. We believe the public will have lasting confidence in the judicial system only if it perceives that we hold fast to principle. We must, therefore, look at legal principle in determining the issue. If in the past neither soliciting sexual favors from a litigant (see Ackel ) nor driving a car while under the influence of alcohol (see Biggins ) was grounds for removal, how can we now say possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use should lead to summary removal? Nothing in the facts of this case provides any indication that the offense was anything other than a simple possession case. The quantity was very small, no evidence of any kind raises even the suspicion of sale. No plea bargain was made to reduce a greater charge to a lesser. Finally, respondent's previous record is unblemished. We hold, therefore, that neither the inherent nature of the crime of possession of marijuana for personal use nor the specific facts pertaining to respondent's commission of the offense warrants summary removal from office under art. 6.1, § 3.