Court Opinion

ID: 9539648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:07:50.047619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:07.272886
License: Public Domain

OGG, Judge,
dissenting.
I would respectfully dissent. Appellant has raised two grounds for a reversal.
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Appellant claims error in the instructions. He neither objected to any of the presented, contested instructions nor presented any pertinent instructions to the trial court. In the absence of a request for a specific A.R.S. § 13-403(1) instruction the failure to give such an instruction must be fundamental error to require reversal. Rule 21.3(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450, 666 P.2d 1059 (1983).
In my opinion the instruction given by the trial court requires parental abuse for a jury conviction and any normal parental action would call for an acquittal of the charge.
Appellant’s line of defense was that the incident had indeed occurred, but that the appellant did not exceed the bounds of normal parental discipline. Under the instructions given the state had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant’s conduct was beyond normal parental action allowed by law in the State of Arizona.
I find no fundamental reversible error in the instructions as given by the trial court.
INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL
Appellant also claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. During the heat of the trial, appellant’s counsel made many tactical decisions. I find no evidence of incompetence within the prevailing professional norms. State v. Espinosa-Gamez, 139 Ariz. 415, 678 P.2d 1379 (1984).
I would affirm the jury verdict and the actions of the trial court.
Note: The Honorable Jack L. Ogg, a retired judge of the Court of Appeals, was authorized to participate in the disposition of this matter by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to Ariz. Const, art. VI, § 20.