Court Opinion

ID: 9855429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:24:41.753424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:42.138232
License: Public Domain

CORCORAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Because I believe that defendants are not entitled to jury trials under either the federal constitution or the Arizona constitution, I would affirm the court of appeals’ decision.
1. Federal law
In Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 1289, 103 L.Ed.2d 550 (1989), the Supreme Court held that persons charged under Nevada law with driving under the influence of alcohol are not entitled to jury trials. Under Nevada law, first-time DUI offenders face up to 6 months in jail and must pay a fine of up to $1,000—the same penalties imposable on persons convicted of misdemeanor possession of marijuana in Arizona. See A.R.S. §§ 13-707(A)(1), -802(A).
In reaching its decision, the Court observed that the most relevant criterion for determining the seriousness of an offense is the severity of the maximum penalty fixed by the statute. 109 S.Ct. at 1292. The Court held that an offense carrying a maximum jail term of 6 months or less will be presumed “petty,” and stated:
A defendant is entitled to jury trial in such circumstances only if he can demonstrate that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a “serious” one.
109 S.Ct. at 1293 (emphasis added). Considering the maximum jail sentence of 6 months, together with the additional penalties imposed by the Nevada DUI statute, including a maximum fine of $1,000 and a 90-day driver’s license suspension,1 the Court concluded that DUI in Nevada is not a “serious” offense, and that, therefore, first-time DUI offenders are not entitled to jury trials under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
*302The Sixth Amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... an impartial jury____" This safeguard is substantially the same as that provided by the Arizona Constitution. Article 2, § 23 provides that “[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate,” while § 24 states: “In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right ... to have a ... trial by an impartial jury____”
Because the right to jury trial provided by the federal and Arizona constitutions are nearly identical, I would follow the interpretation placed on the federal provision by the United States Supreme Court in interpreting the Arizona provision. Accordingly, I would hold that the penalties faced by defendants in our case—6 months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine—do not entitle them to jury trials.
2. ' Arizona law
Even assuming that we must apply a different standard in interpreting a defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Arizona constitution and laws, I would hold that a misdemeanor possession of marijuana charge does not warrant a jury trial. As the majority correctly notes, the Rothweiler court established 3 factors to use in determining a defendant’s right to a jury trial: (1) the severity of the possible penalty, (2) the “moral quality of the act,” and (3) the relation of the offense to common law crimes. Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 42, 410 P.2d at 483. The Rothweiler court focused primarily on the first factor in holding that a defendant charged with DUI was entitled to a jury trial. Noting thát, if convicted, the defendant could be subject to “imprisonment, a fine and suspension of his right to drive for a period of time, or any combination of the three,” the court held:
The severity of the penalty that may be imposed demands that [defendant] be afforded protection of fundamental guarantees of life and liberty as guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution.
100 Ariz. at 44, 410 P.2d at 484.
We previously have held that a maximum penalty of 6 months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine is not serious enough to warrant a jury trial. State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court, 127 Ariz. 152, 618 P.2d 1078 (1980). Thus, Rothweiler’s first factor would not entitle defendants in our case to jury trials.
Regarding the second factor—the moral quality of DUI—the Rothweiler court remarked:
[I]ts moral quality has become offensive to the public as demonstrated by the severity of the punishment. Such conduct is repugnant to the community as well as the law because of the potential harm and evil that may result from such practice.
100 Ariz. at 44, 410 P.2d at 485 (emphasis added). Thus, the court’s determination of the moral quality of the offense was guided by the severity of the penalty. A convicted defendant’s potential loss of driving privileges was merely a consideration in the court’s determination of the severity of the penalty; it was not an independent factor militating in favor of a jury trial.
I agree with the court’s statement in City of Phoenix v. Jones, 25 Ariz.App. 98, 100, 541 P.2d 424, 426 (1975):
We have some difficulty in the area of assessing the “moral quality” of the act, feeling that moral judgments are best left in the hands of the legislature to mark the degree of decadency of the act by the penalty it imposes for its transgression.
Although the court of appeals vacated its opinion on a motion for reconsideration, the court adhered to its earlier pronouncement regarding the determination of an offense’s “moral quality” in answering the defendant’s claim that the crime of carrying a concealed weapon is one involving “moral turpitude”:
In our prior opinion, we specifically rejected the proposition that the judiciary is in a position to categorize the “seriousness” of a crime, this being a function of the legislature by setting the punishment to be exacted. We see no reason to deviate from this prior expression.
City of Phoenix v. Jones, 25 Ariz.App. 265, 266, 542 P.2d 1145, 1146 (1975). As evi*303denced by the maximum penalties imposable—6 months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine—the “moral quality” of misdemeanor possession of marijuana does not entitle defendants in this case to jury trials.
This court has examined the “moral quality” of an offense by considering whether the defendant “is a depraved and inherently base person,” or whether the offense “involve[s] serious moral turpitude.” O’Neill v. Mangum, 103 Ariz. 484, 485, 445 P.2d 843, 844 (1968) (holding that defendants charged with “drunk and disorderly” conduct were not entitled to jury trial). Our court of appeals rejected a defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a jury trial on his reckless driving charge, finding the offense was not “‘an act of such obvious-depravity that to characterize it as a petty offense would be to shock the general moral sense.’ ” State ex rel. Dean v. City Court, 141 Ariz. 361, 363, 687 P.2d 369, 371 (App.1984), quoting District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U.S. 63, 73, 51 S.Ct. 52, 53, 75 L.Ed. 177, 213-14 (1930).
I would hold that the moral quality of a possession of marijuana charge is no worse than that of other offenses Arizona courts have held to be insufficient to satisfy Rothweiler ’s second factor. See Spitz v. Municipal Court, 127 Ariz. 405, 621 P.2d 911 (1980) (sale of alcoholic beverages to minors); State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court (disorderly conduct); Bruce v. State, 126 Ariz. 271, 614 P.2d 813 (1980) (simple assault); Goldman v. Kautz, 111 Ariz. 431, 531 P.2d 1138 (1975) (simple assault and battery); O’Neill v. Mangum (drunk and disorderly conduct); State ex rel. Dean v. City Court (reckless driving); City of Phoenix v. Jones, 25 Ariz.App. 265, 542 P.2d 1145 (1975) (carrying a concealed weapon).
The majority admits that possession of marijuana “does not fall within the definition of moral turpitude,” but holds that Rothweiler’s second factor is satisfied because of the “grave consequences resulting from conviction.” I again point out that the Rothweiler court was concerned with the “grave consequences” resulting from a DUI conviction—suspension of driving privileges—only in considering the first factor of the test—the severity of the possible penalty. The statute applicable in Rothweiler specifically authorized a court to suspend a convicted defendant’s driver’s license.
Adverse consequences that are not provided by the statute, but which nevertheless flow from a conviction, are insufficient to require a jury trial. In Spitz, we held that a defendant charged with selling liquor to a minor is not entitled to a jury trial, and stated:
The fact that there might be an additional sanction, such as suspension of the liquor license by the Superintendent of the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, A.R.S. § 4-210, does not mandate a jury trial.
127 Ariz. at 408, 621 P.2d at 914.
The majority concludes that “certain occupational and professional licenses could conceivably be unavailable to these defendants should they be convicted.” In Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970), the Supreme Court noted:
[T]he prospect of imprisonment for however short a time will seldom be viewed by the accused as a trivial or “petty” matter and may well result in quite serious repercussions affecting his career and his reputation. Where the accused cannot possibly face more than six months’ imprisonment, we have held that these disadvantages, onerous though they may be, may be outweighed by the benefits that result from speedy and inexpensive nonjury adjudications.
399 U.S. at 73, 90 S.Ct. at 1890 (emphasis added). The fact that a conviction for possession of marijuana may affect future, employment possibilities and the ability to obtain some professional licenses does not warrant the classification of this offense as anything other than a petty offense not involving moral turpitude.
Unquestionably, the problem of illegal drugs is of national concern. Governmental agencies in Arizona and across the nation are working to eliminate the problems attendant to drugs—addiction, accidents, *304medical costs, etc. However, these facts do not transform a possession of marijuana charge into an offense involving moral turpitude. I feel that the severity of the potential penalty and the moral quality of the offense, taken together, are insufficient to render possession of marijuana, charged as a class 1 misdemeanor, a serious offense warranting a jury trial under Arizona law.
3. Conclusion
In Blanton, the Court indicated that it would look primarily to the actions of the legislature in fixing the maximum penalty for a crime to determine whether the crime was sufficiently serious to warrant a jury trial, and stated: “The judiciary should not substitute its judgment as to seriousness for that of a legislature____” 109 S.Ct. at 1292. This court has also indicated that its determination of a crime’s seriousness is guided by the legislature, stating that “the maximum statutory penalty is the most relevant objective criteria in determining a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial____” Bruce, 126 Ariz. at 273, 614 P.2d at 815.
In light of these judicial pronouncements, it would be appropriate for the legislature, in setting sanctions imposable for conviction of crimes, to indicate that particular offenses, such as misdemeanor possession of marijuana or first-offense DUI, should not be tried before a jury. Assuming the constitutionality of the statute were challenged, this court could then face squarely the constitutional issues concerning a defendant’s right to a jury trial.

. The penalties imposed on first-time DUI offenders under Arizona law are nearly identical to those imposed under Nevada law. See A.R.S. § 28-692.01.