Court Opinion

ID: 9566031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:32:11.802827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:17.280164
License: Public Domain

*419WEISBERG, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
For the following reasons, I would affirm the trial court and therefore respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
The majority holds that the charging document implies that an automobile was involved in the offense and, therefore, that defendant was entitled to a lesser included offense instruction on reckless driving. The majority relies, in part, on the fact that the indictment refers to a highway and milepost. Such references do not necessarily imply the use of an automobile; they merely are a practical method for describing location in rural areas. An indictment charging a person with a crime involving the use of a weapon might also contain a similar geographic description. I do not believe that the charging document itself necessarily implies any specific dangerous instrument.
I further disagree with the majority’s position that this court should read the indictment in light of the known facts of this case. This court has held that an analysis of the facts of a given case is inappropriate when determining the appropriateness of a lesser included instruction. State v. Teran, 130 Ariz. 277, 279, 635 P.2d 870, 872 (App.1981) (rejecting evidentiary test). A defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction only if “(1) the included offense is by its very nature always a constituent part of the major offense charged; or (2) the terms of the charging document describe the lesser offense even though the lesser offense would not always form a constituent part of the major offense charged.” State v. Caudillo, 124 Ariz. 410, 411, 604 P.2d 1121, 1122 (1980) (emphasis added). The first condition clearly is not met; reckless driving is not always a constituent part of second-degree murder. Because I believe that Caudillo limits this court to the consideration of the terms of the charging document, I also conclude that the second condition is not met; the indictment does not include any reference to the use of an automobile and therefore does not describe reckless driving. I therefore would hold that defendant is not entitled to the lesser included offense instruction.
As the majority notes, an indictment must give notice of the charges against a defendant. Although a factual analysis might be useful in determining the sufficiency of an indictment, the sufficiency of the indictment in this case is not at issue. Factual analysis is inappropriate when considering appropriate lesser included offense instructions. Teran, 130 Ariz. at 279, 635 P.2d at 872.
Next, defendant argues that his use of an automobile should not be used to enhance his sentence pursuant to A.R.S. section 13-604(F), which enhances sentences for offenses committed with a dangerous instrument. He cites State v. Orduno, 159 Ariz. 564, 769 P.2d 1010 (1989), as support for his position. Orduno, however, is limited to prohibiting the use of an automobile as an enhancement circumstance in driving under the influence cases. See id. at 566, 769 P.2d at 1012; see also State v. Lara, 171 Ariz. 282, 284, 830 P.2d 803, 805 (1992). The Arizona Supreme Court based its prohibition partly on the fact that use of an automobile is necessarily an included element of driving under the influence. Id. 159 Ariz. at 567, 769 P.2d at 1013. In the instant case, use of an automobile, or any dangerous instrument for that matter, is not necessarily an included element of second-degree murder. See State v. Olsen, 157 Ariz. 603, 605, 760 P.2d 603, 605 (App.1988). Orduno, therefore, does not apply. I would hold that defendant’s sentence was appropriately enhanced because of his use of a deadly instrument. See Lara, 171 Ariz. at 285, 830 P.2d at 806 (reaffirming State v. Bly, 127 Ariz. 370, 372-73, 621 P.2d 279, 281-82 (1980) (approving use of an element of a crime as an enhancement circumstance)).
Because I would hold that the trial court appropriately refused the requested lesser included offense instruction and correctly enhanced defendant’s sentence based on his use of a deadly instrument, I would affirm. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.