Court Opinion

ID: 9627102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:34:23.397906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:38.932914
License: Public Domain

FIDEL, Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in all portions of the court’s opinion save one. The majority holds, and I agree, that the claim of right defense has been abolished by A.R.S. § 13-1801(A)(12). The majority adds, however, that even if the defense survives, this defendant could not assert it because the claim of right defense is unavailable to a defendant who denies that he took property by force. Here I disagree.
If we are correct in holding the defense abolished, the point is academic in this case. Yet it has significance in the larger context of justification defenses as a whole. The law is fast eroding that required a defendant to admit the elements of a charged offense in order to defend on grounds of justification. See Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 108 S.Ct. 883, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (entrapment); State v. Plew, 150 Ariz. 75, 722 P.2d 243 (1986) (self defense); State v. Wright, 163 Ariz. 184, 786 P.2d 1035 (App.1989) (defense of a third person). This trend was recently discussed in State v. Soule, 164 Ariz. 165, 169, 791 P.2d 1048, 1052 (App.1989). I would extend it to all viable justification defenses. I agree, however, for reasons set forth by the majority, that the group of viable justification defenses no longer includes the claim of right.