Abbey v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County
| Decision Date | 03 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
| Citation | 7 Ariz.App. 330,439 P.2d 302 |
| Parties | Judith ABBEY and Thomas F. Saarinen, Petitioners, v. The CITY COURT OF the CITY OF TUCSON, PIMA COUNTY, Arizona, Respondent. 551. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
O'Dowd & O'Dowd, by Erik M. O'Dowd, Tucson, for petitioners.
Joseph A. Lovallo, Tucson, for respondent.
This petition for writ of prohibition arises out of criminal complaints filed in the City Court of the City of Tucson which attempt to allege a violation of the misdemeanor statute, A.R.S. § 13--633, pertaining to unlawful assembly.
The complaints alleged:
'* * * did commit a misdemeanor as follows: to wit:
'that the above named defendant (name of the defendant) did on or about December 4, 1967 assemble together with two (2) or more persons in the vicinity of 110 S. Scott Ave. in the City of Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona, for purposes of participating in a lawful act which after it had been commenced did then become violent, boisterous or tumultuous in manner, and did thereby become an unlawful assembly, all of which is contrary to the laws of the State of Arizona and the City of Tucson according to Arizona Revised Statutes 13--633.'
A.R.S. § 13--633 reads as follows:
The verbiage selected in these complaints appears to carefully avoid stating that the defendants participated in the 'lawful act' after 'it' had 'become an unlawful assembly.'
Our unlawful assembly statute is patently adopted from California, where the wording of this statute appears to have originated in an 1850 legislative act. See 'Derivation' note after §§ 407 and 408 of West's Annotated California Penal Code. It has been held in California that, under the second alternative of this statute, a person may be guilty of unlawful assembly without the specific intent to do an act in a violent, boisterous or tumultuous manner. People v. Kerrick, 86 Cal.App. 542, 261 P. 756 (1927). But we see nothing in this holding which would indicate that those who assemble for a lawful purpose become violators of this statute as soon as the assembly becomes an unlawful one. We believe the statute leaves outside of its pale those who disassociate themselves from any such assemblage as soon as it becomes an unlawful one. Cf. Bolin v. State, 193 Ind. 302, 139 N.E. 659, 663 (1923); and see Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal.2d 315, 316, 239 P.2d 876, 878 (1952) (dictum). This possibility is not eliminated by the specifics charged in these complaints.
This court has held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County
...1000 (1968). It is implicit in the Crouch decision that this court, Division Two, acted without jurisdiction in Abbey v. City Court, 7 Ariz.App. 330, 439 P.2d 302 (1968), by issuing a writ of prohibition to the same city court as to which the instant writ of certiorari is addressed. In Abbe......
-
Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County
...Division Two of this court had issued writs in similar matters previously without jurisdictional inquiry (see, e.g., Abbey v. City Court, 1968, 7 Ariz.App. 330, 439 P.2d 302), it was prompted by the Crouch decision to consider the matter on its own motion in Sherfield v. City Court of City ......
-
Crouch v. Justice of Peace Court of Sixth Precinct
...During the preparation of this opinion, the opinion rendered by Division Two of this Court in the case of Abbey et al. v. City Court of City of Tucson, 7 Ariz.App. 330, 439 P.2d 302, decided 3 April 1968, has come to our attention. In Abbey, the Court of Appeals reviewed the action of a cit......
-
Nunez v. Superior Court In and For Pima County
...by way of special action is appropriate to review an erroneous denial of a motion to quash, see Abbey v. City Court of the City of Tucson, 7 Ariz.App. 330, 439 P.2d 302 (1968), we assume A.R.S. § 13--1092 provides: 'A. No person shall go upon or remain upon the property of any educational i......