State v. Bell
| Citation | 551 P.2d 548,113 Ariz. 279 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3477,3477 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Harold Abel BELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer III, and Cleon M. Duke, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Benjamin Lazarow, Tucson, for appellant.
Harold Abel Bell was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of A.R.S. § 13--249, and obstruction of justice while armed with a deadly weapon in violation of ARS § 13--541(A). He was sentenced to a term of not less than 13 nor more than 16 years for the first conviction, and not less than 5 nor more than 10 years on the second, both sentences to run concurrently. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 47(e)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court.
On March 25, 1975, officers of the Department of Public Safety observed appellant's vehicle weaving across the center line on State Route 95. The officers stopped appellant's vehicle and one officer approached the driver's side and requested appellant's license and registration. Appellant produced a driver's license and opened the glove compartment to produce rental papers. The officer observed what appeared to be a large sum of money in the glove compartment when it was opened by appellant. Appellant was asked to move to the rear of the vehicle which he did. At that point in time the second officer, standing on the passenger side of the vehicle, drew his weapon on the passenger. Appellant then attempted to re-enter the vehicle on the driver's side. The first officer grabbed appellant and both fell forward into the front seat of the vehicle. During the ensuing scuffle appellant produced three weapons from beneath the front seat. He was disarmed on each occasion after violent resistance and was eventually subdued and arrested.
Appellant raises four issues on appeal.
1. Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion to suppress?
2. Was it error for the trial court to convict appellant of the crime of obstruction of justice while armed with a gun since the state failed to prove specific intent?
3. Was the conviction for obstruction of justice error since appellant was resisting an unlawful arrest?
4. Was the sentence imposed an abuse of discretion and cruel and unusual punishment?
Appellant's first issue on appeal concerns the seizure of evidence in his vehicle. He argues that the arrest was illegal and thus was an insufficient predicate upon which to base the subsequent search. The officers stopped appellant's vehicle after they observed it crossing the center line. By reason of defendant's erratic driving, this stop was a proper exercise of the state's police power. State v. Harrison, 111 Ariz. 508, 533 P.2d 1143 (1975). It was also proper for the purpose of determining whether appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of drugs. A.R.S. § 13--1403(2).
Once the officer stopped the vehicle, he requested appellant's license and registration. It was at this time he noticed the apparent large sum of money in the glove compartment and asked appellant to step to the rear of the vehicle. Appellant's subsequent reaction to the second officer's actions, coupled with the production by appellant of three weapons from beneath the front seat, provided sufficient 'probable cause to believe a crime had been committed and . . . to search' the car further. State v. Brierly, 109 Ariz. 310, 509 P.2d 203 (1973).
Appellant next argues that the state failed to prove specific intent with respect to the commission by appellant of the crime of obstruction of justice while armed with a deadly weapon. He also submits that a 'deadly weapon' was not employed since the weapon was holstered and thus inoperable.
State v. Jamison, 110 Ariz. 245, 517 P.2d 1241 (1974). The crime of obstruction of justice while armed with a deadly weapon is a general intent crime. The state may prove general intent by proof of the commission of the crime, together with proof, by circumstantial evidence if necessary, of appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stanley
...Cert. denied, 431 U.S. 921, 97 S.Ct. 2191, 53 L.Ed.2d 234 (1977); State v. Toney, 113 Ariz. 404, 555 P.2d 650 (1976); State v. Bell, 113 Ariz. 279, 551 P.2d 548 (1976). An abuse of discretion has been described as capriciousness or the failure to conduct an investigation sufficient for the ......
-
U.S. v. Doe
...State v. Scott, 118 Ariz. 383, 576 P.2d 1383, 1385 (1978); see also State v. O'Farrell, 355 A.2d 396, 398 (Me.1976); State v. Bell, 113 Ariz. 279, 551 P.2d 548, 550 (1976); United States v. Acevedo-Velez, 17 M.J. 1, 2 (C.M.A.1983); 6A C.J.S. Arson § 6, 223 (1975). 3 "To be a willful act, th......
-
State Ex Rel. Thomas C. Horne v. Autozone Inc.
...248, 517 P.2d 1241, 1244 (1974), overruled on other grounds by State v. Mikels, 118 Ariz. 495, 578 P.2d 174 (1978); see State v. Bell, 113 Ariz. 279, 281, 551 P.2d 548, 550 (1976); State v. Brown, 204 Ariz. 405, 409, ¶ 18, 64 P.3d 847, 851 (App.2003). By recognizing the State had made a pri......
-
State v. Snodgrass
...does not require any intent to violate law, or injure another, or to acquire any advantage.' A.R.S. § 1-215(36)." State v. Bell, 113 Ariz. 279, 281, 551 P.2d 548, 550 (1976). It does, however, require that the defendant have knowledge that the person obstructed is a peace officer. See State......