State v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 16 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 1346,1346 |
| Citation | 97 Ariz. 102,397 P.2d 214 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Nacho GARCIA, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., and Norman E. Green, County Atty. of Pima County, by Carl Waag, Deputy County Atty., for appellee.
S. Leonard Scheff, Tucson, for appellant.
Appellant was charged with the illegal possession of marijuana under A.R.S. § 36-1002.05. He was tried and convicted before Judge Alice Truman sitting without a jury in the Superior Court of Pima County. He was represented by counsel at the trial. Other counsel represents him on this appeal.
The officers testified that when appellant was arrested they found marijuana in the trunk of his car, and that residual traces of marijuana were found by laboratory tests of a coat alleged to belong to appellant. Appellant testified that others had access to his car and that he did not know the marijuana was there. Appellant is a Mexican national, illegally in this country. He has pled guilty to burglary charges numerous times, and in 1933 was convicted on a marijuana charge which was alleged as a prior conviction in the amended complaint upon which he was tried.
We consider appellant's assignments of error relating to the admission of evidence of other crimes.
Over objection by appellant's trial counsel, evidence was admitted that Alex Jacome's gasoline credit card was in appellant's wallet at the time of his arrest. The possession of this credit card connected appellant with a burglary for which he was scheduled to stand trial separately. Evidence was also introduced that appellant was wanted for burglary elsewhere, and that he was illegally in this country. It was error to admit any of this evidence. Thompson v. State, 21 Ariz. 268, 187 P. 579; State v. Thomas, 71 Ariz. 423, 229 P.2d 246; State v. Hunt, 91 Ariz. 145, 370 P.2d 640; State v. Kellington, 91 Ariz. 396, 381 P.2d 215; State v. Eddington, 95 Ariz. 10, 386 P.2d 20.
The result in this case depends on whether a rule of exclusion designed to protect juries from being misled by the introduction of inadmissible and prejudicial matter should be applied to a case which was tried by a judge without a jury. The Arizona Constitutional was amended in 1960 to permit the waiver of a jury trial in Superior Court with the consent of the court in any criminal cause, Ariz.Const. Art. 6, § 17, A.R.S. The question here presented of the effect of the improper admission of testimony in a criminal case tried without a jury is thus one of first impression in this state.
In civil cases, it is the rule in Arizona that improper admissions into evidence will not be considered as error on appeal, where a case is tried to the judge without a jury, because of the presumption that the trial judge disregarded all inadmissible evidence in reaching his decision. If the competent evidence is sufficient to support the judgment it will be sustained regardless of the error. Miller v. Green, 3 Ariz. 205, 73 P. 399; Home Owners Loan Corp. v. Bank of Arizona, 54 Ariz. 146, 94 P.2d 437; Collison v. International Insurance Co., 58 Ariz. 156, 118 P.2d 445; American Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Van Denburgh, 76 Ariz. 1, 257 P.2d 856; Odom v. First National Bank of Arizona, 85 Ariz. 238, 336 P.2d 141.
In a criminal case tried before the court without a jury and involving the improper admission of testimony of other crimes, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Djerf
...all inadmissible evidence in reaching a decision. State v. Gonzales, 111 Ariz. 38, 41, 523 P.2d 66, 69 (1974) (citing State v. Garcia, 97 Ariz. 102, 397 P.2d 214 (1964)); see also State v. Cameron, 146 Ariz. 210, 215, 704 P.2d 1355, 1360 (App.1985). The plain statement that a trial court co......
-
State v. Miranda
...It is well established that the admission of incompetent evidence, in a case tried to the court, is harmless error. State v. Garcia, 97 Ariz. 102, 397 P.2d 214 (1964). Nor, we do not consider that the allowance of the cross-examination was erroneous. This jurisdiction is dedicated to a broa......
-
State v. Gonzales, 2587
...in this contention. It is presumed that the trial court disregards all inadmissible evidence in reaching his decision. State v. Garcia, 97 Ariz. 102, 397 P.2d 214 (1964). Appellant also alleges that the failure of the state to furnish him with its doctor's oral report constituted reversible......
-
Com. v. Conti
...are willing to presume that the judge will disregard inadmissible and rely only on competent evidence. See generally, State v. Garcia, 97 Ariz. 102, 397 P.2d 214 (1964); McCormick, Supra; Levin and Cohen, The Exclusionary Rules in Nonjury Criminal Cases, 119 U.Pa.L.Rev. 905 (1971); Davis, H......
-
Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding.
...failure to testify ... presum[ably] they follow their own instructions when they are acting as factfinders."); State v. Garcia, 397 P.2d 214, 216 (Ariz. 1964) (holding that in criminal cases, as in civil cases, the court will not consider improper admission of evidence as error on appeal fr......