Court Opinion

ID: 9561412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:09:31.087006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:47.386093
License: Public Domain

FERNANDEZ, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. I believe that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict as to aggravated assault and that the case should have been submitted to the jury on a charge of simple assault only.
The assault in this case was a brief one. The victim was hit in the eye by appellant as he sat by a concrete pillar. He testified that he dropped to his knees so he could stand up and run away from his assailant. As he attempted to stand, he felt appellant on his back. At the same time, the victim began to feel electrical shocks on his chest from the stun device appellant was using on him.
The victim struggled free and finally stood up. At that point, appellant yelled for help from his co-defendant. The victim testified that he then felt electrical shocks on both his chest and back at the same time. After that, the victim threw appellant against the victim’s car and turned to the other man, who promptly fled. The victim then turned back to appellant and discovered he had also fled. The co-defendant was acquitted.
A certified stun device instructor testified that a stun device releases electricity into the target and that the resulting discharge is painful and discomforting but not *286dangerous. It cannot kill anyone or interfere with a person’s heartbeat. A stun device causes the voluntary muscles to work involuntarily and is most effective when it is used on high muscle, nerve-rich areas of the body. The device must touch the body in order to stun a person. Neither fatty nor bony areas of the body conduct the electricity well.
The expert testified that a “take-down situation,” in which a person is incapacitated for several minutes, requires that the person be held by someone else while the stun device is applied to the proper muscle tissue for two to eight seconds. When the device is properly applied for a take down, the person will be groggy and disoriented for up to fifteen minutes. He testified that simply thrusting the device against the person would not incapacitate the person.
Appellant was charged with aggravated assault pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(8), an assault committed “while the victim is bound or otherwise physically restrained or while the victim’s capacity to resist is substantially impaired.” Under the applicable standard for ruling on a motion for directed verdict, I believe there was a complete lack of probative evidence of aggravated assault under this statute. State v. Girdler, 138 Ariz. 482, 675 P.2d 1301 (1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1244, 104 S.Ct. 3519, 82 L.Ed.2d 826 (1984).
The evidence was clearly insufficient on the issue of whether the victim’s capacity to resist was substantially impaired. There was no evidence that one of his assailants held him while the other applied the stun device for a number of seconds, requirements which the expert testified were necessary for a “take-down situation.” The evidence showed that the victim had numerous cuts and scratches consistent with someone who was struggling against the stun device. There was no testimony that the victim was ever rendered groggy and disoriented. The victim also gave the following testimony on cross-examination:
Q. ... It’s fair to say that the stun gun didn’t have a lot of effect on your physical mobility?
A. It certainly didn’t have enough of an effect to stop me from fighting.
Q. So it’s fair to say that it didn’t have a lot of effect on your physical mobility to stop you from fighting?
A. I was able to get up; that’s true.
Q. So you could continue fighting?
A. I did continue to fight.
Q. And you could get up without any problems?
A. There was a lot of problems.
Q. I think it’s also fair to say that it didn’t have—the stun gun didn’t have a lot of effect at all; isn’t that right?
A. Ma’am, I couldn’t tell you what a lot is or what—all I know, it seemed—
Q. I am going to ask you now, just flip the page over in the interview____
******
Q. Okay. And I think Mr. Gruikshank asked you if you could describe the effect that one of those devices had on your physical mobility. Do you remember that question now?
A. I do.
Q. And your answer was, ‘Not a lot. [sic]’?
A. Not enough to keep me from getting out of their grasp, that’s true.
The dictionary definition of “impair” is “to make worse: diminish in quantity, value, excellence, or strength: do harm to: DAMAGE, LESSEN.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary p. 1131 (1971). “Substantial” is defined as “considerable in amount, value, or worth.’.’ Id. at 2280. The evidence presented here certainly supports a determination that the victim’s capacity to resist was impaired; it does not, however, support a determination that his ability to resist was substantially impaired.
Nor do I believe that the evidence was sufficient to show that the victim was “otherwise physically restrained.” A.R.S. § 13—1204(A)(8). I believe that the use of the word “or” in the statute reflects the legislative intent that the physical restraint required be roughly equivalent to the restraint that exists when a victim is bound.
*287There was no evidence here that one of the men held the victim while the other hit him. The only testimony about the two men acting in concert was that the victim at one time felt electrical shocks in both his chest and back. That occurred after the time during which the victim was struggling to stand. The only evidence of physical restraint was the victim’s testimony that appellant was “on top of” him when he first felt electrical shocks in his chest, also caused by appellant. Thus, appellant momentarily prevented the victim from standing up.
I believe that the statute requires something more substantial than the momentary restraint that occurred in this case before a class 1 misdemeanor can be elevated to a class 6 felony. The majority’s interpretation of the statute would have the effect of converting nearly every fight to a felony simply because the victim at some point is required to struggle to break free from the other person’s grip on his hand, arm, leg, back or whatever.
I would remand for appellant to be resentenced on a charge of simple assault.