State v. Alkhowarizmi
Decision Date | 30 December 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 1730,1730 |
Citation | 421 P.2d 871,101 Ariz. 514 |
Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Justice Musa ALKHOWARIZMI, a.k.a. Jesse Ferguson, Appellant. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robt. K. Corbin, County Atty., Maricopa County, for appellee.
Vernon B. Croaff, Public Defender of Maricopa County, Grant Laney, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.
The appellant, Justice M. Alkhowarizmi, also known as Jesse Ferguson, was convicted of sodomy (A.R.S. Sec. 13--651) after a trial by jury in superior court of Maricopa County; he was sentenced to serve fifteen years to life in the Arizona State Prison. The Public Defender, finding no reversible error of which to complain, moved this Court to allow submission of the appeal on the record. Accordingly, we have searched the record for fundamental error as required by A.R.S. Sec. 13--1715.
On January 15, 1966 George Klettinger, patrolman for the City of Phoenix police department, found the appellant and his codefendant in the back of a ven-type truck which was parked in the city of Phoenix. The appellant and his companion were arrested and after a preliminary hearing were bound over for trial on a charge of committing the 'infamous crime against nature', proscribed by A.R.S. Sec. 13--651.
Neither defendant testified at the trial and the only evidence offered by the State was the following testimony of officer Klettinger, who described what he saw when he flashed his light into the back of the truck:
'
Apparently, in view of the above testimony, officer Klettinger did not actually observe an act of penetration, and in order to sustain a conviction of sodomy, penetration, however slight, must be proven. State v. Poole, 59 Ariz. 44, 122 P.2d 415. The act of penetration may be proven by circumstantial evidence, People v. Singh, 93 Cal.App. 32, 268 P. 958, and from the testimony of the officer it may reasonably be inferred that the defendant consummated the alleged act. However, from the circumstances described it is equally reasonable to conclude that the defendant unsuccessfully attempted a penetration, or that there was merely a manipulation between the persons of the defendants, without the penetration necessary to the crime of sodomy, or that the parties had engaged in other sexual misconduct. In view of the fact that inconsistent conclusions are reasonable from the circumstances, and that conclusions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hernandez
...he retained possession of the car, or where the owner of the car was during and after the time of the theft. In State v. Alkhowarizmi, 101 Ariz. 514, 421 P.2d 871 (1966), when faced with a much stronger chain of circumstantial evidence than in the present case, the Arizona Supreme Court rev......
-
State v. Harvill
...(1969); State v. Miller, 104 Ariz. 335, 452 P.2d 509 (1969); State v. Hughes, 102 Ariz. 118, 426 P.2d 386 (1967); State v. Alkhowarizmi, 101 Ariz. 514, 421 P.2d 871 (1966); State v. Thompson, 101 Ariz. 38, 415 P.2d 566 (1966); State v. Turner, 101 Ariz. 85, 416 P.2d 409 (1966); State v. Bea......
-
State v. Bateman
...court. State v. Mortimer, 105 Ariz. 472, 467 P.2d 60 (1970); State v. Wayman, 104 Ariz. 125, 449 P.2d 296 (1969); State v. Alkhowarizmi, 101 Ariz. 514, 421 P.2d 871 (1966); Lovelace v. Clark, supra; State v. Potts, 75 Ariz. 211, 254 P.2d 1023 (1953); Faber v. State, 62 Ariz. 16, 152 P.2d 67......
-
State v. Sustaita
...32 (1976), and therefore without an assault. See State v. Sims, 114 Ariz. 292, 560 P.2d 810 (App.1977); see also State v. Alkhowarizmi, 101 Ariz. 514, 421 P.2d 871 (1966), where both participants were prosecuted. Since the use of force or violence is not a necessary element of the crime of ......