State v. Cousins, No. 1372
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | UDALL |
| Citation | 97 Ariz. 105,397 P.2d 217 |
| Docket Number | No. 1372 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1964 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Plaintiff, v. Arthur W. COUSINS, Defendant. |
Page 217
v.
Arthur W. COUSINS, Defendant.
[97 Ariz. 106] Charles N. Ronan, County Atty., Maricopa County, City Atty. of City of Phoenix, by Thomas J. McLaughlin, Asst. City Atty., and Vernon B. Croaff, Phoenix City Prosecutor, for plaintiff.
Coit I. Hughes, Phoenix, for defendant.
UDALL, Chief Justice.
This case is before us on certification pursuant to Rule 346, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., from the Superior Court of Maricopa County.
Arthur Cousins, the defendant, was charged in the City Court of the City of Phoenix with drunk or disorderly conduct
Page 218
in a public place. Ch. 27, § 26, Code of the City of Phoenix (1962). The cause came on for trial in the City Court and the defendant[97 Ariz. 107] was adjudged guilty and thereafter a timely appeal to the Superior Court was taken. A.R.S. § 22-371 (1963). The defendant requested a jury in the Superior Court and renewed his request for a jury immediately before the trial was to begin. The trial court then vacated the trial setting in order to certify three questions to this Court pursuant to Criminal Rule 346. The following are the question certified to this Court:Question I: 'On the trial of a criminal offense in the Phoenix City Court filed under Section 27-26 of the City Code of the City of Phoenix, does the defendant have the right to a jury trial where a demand therefor has been made?'
Question II: 'Upon appeal to the Superior Court of a criminal offense filed under Section 27-26 of the City Code of the City of Phoenix, does the defendant have the right to a jury trial where a demand therefor has been made?'
Question III: 'Upon appeal to the Superior Court of any criminal case tried in the City Court, in which a right to trial by jury exists, of how many persons shall the jury be composed?'
In answering these questions we must examine the extent of the right of trial by jury. Our Constitution provides:
'The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, * * *.' Ariz.Const. Art. 2, § 23, A.R.S.
The provision of the Constitution quoted does not give the right to a trial by jury, but its purpose is to guarantee the preservation of the right. Brown v. Greer, 16 Ariz. 215, 141 P. 841 (1914). The right of a trial by jury, which was thus confirmed and retained inviolate, is not and has never been a right which a defendant could invoke in all instances, even in charges of a criminal nature. It is applicable only in those matters in which it existed anciently under the common law. District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617, 57 S.Ct. 660, 81 L.Ed. 843 (1937); Town of Montclair v. Stanoyevich, 6 N.J. 479, 79 A.2d 288 (1951). Cf. Ariz.Const., Art. 2, § 24 and U.S.Const. amend. VI.
Our legislature has spoken on this matter with respect to trials in inferior courts such as the City Court in this case, in A.R.S. § 22-425(A) (1956) which states:
'In the trial of offenses for violation of ordinances of cities or towns of such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Hays, No. 8653
...but its purpose is to guarantee a preservation of the right. Rothweiler v. Superior Court, 100 Ariz. 37, 410 P.2d 479; State v. Cousins, 97 Ariz. 105, 397 P.2d 217; Brown v. Greer, 16 Ariz. 215, 141 P. 841. Since the Constitution preserves a jury trial in the common-law action of negligence......
-
State v. Bennion, No. 15717
...in 1890. Burnham, supra, 35 Idaho at 525-26, 207 P. at 590; Christensen, supra, 6 Idaho at 94, 53 P. at 212; accord, State v. Cousins, 97 Ariz. 105, 397 P.2d 217, 218 (1964); Town of Montclair v. Stanoyevich, 6 N.J. 479, 79 A.2d 288, 293 The standard should not be taken to extreme. The Fram......
-
Derendal v. Griffith, No. CV-04-0037-PR.
...upon the severity of the penalty rather than the nature of the offense, we also began to make this transition. Thus, in State v. Cousins, 97 Ariz. 105, 397 P.2d 217 (1964), this court first addressed the question whether an offense for which no common law antecedent existed might neverthele......
-
State v. Roscoe, No. 5831.
...v. Superior Court, 1 Ariz. App. 334, 339, 402 P.2d 1010, 1015 (1965) aff'd, 100 Ariz. 37, 410 P.2d 479 (1966); State v. Cousins, 97 Ariz. 105, 106, 397 P.2d 217, 219 (1964). See also Spaziano v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 3165, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984) (sentencing by jury not ......
-
Morgan v. Hays, No. 8653
...but its purpose is to guarantee a preservation of the right. Rothweiler v. Superior Court, 100 Ariz. 37, 410 P.2d 479; State v. Cousins, 97 Ariz. 105, 397 P.2d 217; Brown v. Greer, 16 Ariz. 215, 141 P. 841. Since the Constitution preserves a jury trial in the common-law action of negligence......
-
State v. Bennion, No. 15717
...in 1890. Burnham, supra, 35 Idaho at 525-26, 207 P. at 590; Christensen, supra, 6 Idaho at 94, 53 P. at 212; accord, State v. Cousins, 97 Ariz. 105, 397 P.2d 217, 218 (1964); Town of Montclair v. Stanoyevich, 6 N.J. 479, 79 A.2d 288, 293 The standard should not be taken to extreme. The Fram......
-
Derendal v. Griffith, No. CV-04-0037-PR.
...upon the severity of the penalty rather than the nature of the offense, we also began to make this transition. Thus, in State v. Cousins, 97 Ariz. 105, 397 P.2d 217 (1964), this court first addressed the question whether an offense for which no common law antecedent existed might neverthele......
-
State v. Roscoe, No. 5831.
...v. Superior Court, 1 Ariz. App. 334, 339, 402 P.2d 1010, 1015 (1965) aff'd, 100 Ariz. 37, 410 P.2d 479 (1966); State v. Cousins, 97 Ariz. 105, 106, 397 P.2d 217, 219 (1964). See also Spaziano v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 3165, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984) (sentencing by jury not ......