O'Neill v. Mangum
| Decision Date | 10 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 9245,9245 |
| Citation | 445 P.2d 843,103 Ariz. 484 |
| Parties | James L. O'NEILL and Elsa R. O'Neill, Petitioners, v. Eugene K. MANGUM, Chief Magistrate of the City Court of the City of Phoenix; and all of the Magistrates thereof; and the City Court of the City of Phoenix; and the State of Arizona, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Green & Lurie, by Norman E. Green, Phoenix, for petitioners.
Robert J. Backstein, City Atty., Phoenix, by R. George Estrada, Asst. City Atty., for respondents.
Petitioner-defendants, James L. and Elsa R. O'Neill, husband and wife hereinafter referred to as defendants, each stand charged in the City Court of the City of Phoenix with a violation of A.R.S. § 13--379, 1 Drunk and disorderly, a misdemeanor. At their arraignment on September 8, 1967 the defendants entered a plea of not guilty and demanded trial by jury. Following denial of their demand for jury trial and exhaustion of their remedies in the superior court and court of appeals, defendants filed in this court an original petition for an alternative writ of prohibition and writ of prohibition.
Defendants assert that to proceed with said trial without a jury would be a deprivation of due process of law as guaranteed by the Arizona and United States Constitutions and a denial of equal protection of the law as provided by both the Arizona and United States Constitutions.
Defendants' contentions are neither novel nor sustainable. It is old law that the constitutional right to trial by jury does not extend to petty offenses: Rothweiler v. Superior Court, 100 Ariz. 37, 410 P.2d 479, 16 A.L.R.3d 1362; Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 32 L.Ed. 223; Cheff v. Schnackenberg et al., 384 U.S. 373, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 16 L.Ed.2d 629.
A violation of A.R.S. § 13--379, Drunk and Disorderly, is a misdemeanor. The severity of punishment to which defendants might be subjected is a maximum fine of $300.00 and/or imprisonment for a term not to exceed six months.
In Rothweiler v. Superior Court, supra, we said:
'* * * In determining whether a crime is a petty offense that constitutionally may be tried without a jury the severity of the penalty inflictable, as well as the moral quality of the act and its relation to common law crimes, must be considered.' p. 42, 410 P.2d p. 483
We note in State v. Cousins, 97 Ariz. 105, 397 P.2d 217, that at common law the crime of drunk and disorderly was not triable by a jury, and we there found that one charged with 'drunk and disorderly' under municipal code was not entitled to jury trial in municipal court where the severity of the penalty was a possible $300.00 fine or three months in prison or both.
Insofar as the 'moral quality of the act' is concerned, in today's affluent and self-indulgent society it can hardly be suggested that one charged or guilty of mere 'drunk and disorderly' conduct is a depraved and inherently base person. In and of itself the charge does not involve serious moral turpitude. We cannot hold that the moral quality of the act is a crime of such nature as warrants a jury trial as a matter of constitutional right where that right did not exist at common law.
There remains but to consider the severity of the penalty. Is the possibility of six month jail sentence on top of a $300.00 fine so severe as to remove this offense from the 'petty' category? We think not.
Defendants have seen fit to assert their contentions under both the state and federal constitutions. In the federal system, petty offenses are defined as those punishable by no more than six months in prison and a $500.00 fine, 18 U.S.C. § 1; and the United States Supreme Court very recently reaffirmed its position that:
Duncan v. State of Louisiana, decided May 20, 1968. 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1453, 20 L.Ed.2d 491.
In Cheff v. Schnackenberg et al., supra, it was held that prosec...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bennion
...and the nature of the offense. E.g., Clawans, supra, 300 U.S. at 627, 57 S.Ct. at 663; Baker, supra, 471 P.2d at 393; O'Neill v. Mangum, 445 P.2d 843, 844 (Ariz.1968). Depending on the jurisdictional background law and on the court's evaluation of the two factors, the results of this test h......
-
Derendal v. Griffith
...our focus from the nature of the crime and toward the nature of the defendant's character and conduct. See O'Neill v. Mangum, 103 Ariz. 484, 485, 445 P.2d 843, 844 (1968) (finding that "it can hardly be suggested that one charged or guilty of mere `drunk and disorderly' conduct is a deprave......
-
Marquardt, Matter of
...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 [103 Ariz. 484, 445 P.2d 843 (1968) ] (drunk and disorderly conduct); State ex rel. Dean v. City Court [141 Ariz. 361, 687 P.2d 369 (App.1984) ] (reckless ......
-
State ex rel. McDougall v. Strohson (Cantrell)
...trial where the charge was simple assault and battery. Id. at 433, 531 P.2d at 1140. Harking back to an earlier case, O'Neill v. Mangum, 103 Ariz. 484, 445 P.2d 843 (1968), in which the court refused a jury trial for a defendant charged with drunk and disorderly conduct, the Goldman court r......