State v. Gastelum
Decision Date | 30 March 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 1031,1031 |
Citation | 255 P.2d 203,75 Ariz. 271 |
Parties | STATE v. GASTELUM. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Rosenberg & La Vetter, of Tucson, for appellant.
Fred O. Wilson, Atty. Gen., Newman W. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert Morrison, Pima County Atty., and Robert F. Miller, Deputy Co. Atty., Tucson, for appellee.
Defendant was convicted in the superior court of Pima County, Arizona, of the violation of the Uniform Narcotics Act of 1935, A.C.A.1939, § 68-801 et seq., to wit, that he wilfully and unlawfully had in his possession and under his control certain narcotic drugs commonly known as marijuana. From the judgment entered thereon defendant appeals.
Two assignments of error have been presented for consideration:
'1. The court erred in denying defendant's motion, before trial, to quash the information for the reason that the Uniform Narcotics Act of 1935 under which defendant was charged is unconstitutional in that it violates article 4, part 2, section 13, of the constitution of Arizona.
'2. The court erred in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based upon the misconduct of counsel for the state, the assistant county attorney, in continuously propounding to the defendant, on cross-examination, over the objections of defendant's counsel, questions which were entirely improper and incompetent and in violation of section 43-1004 [44-1004], A.C.A.1939. The questions are set forth in designated lines and pages of the transcript of the evidence, which questions it is claimed were asked solely for the purpose of prejudicing the jury against the defendant and which did prejudice the jury.
Counsel for defendant contend that the title of the act falls far short of the constitutional requirements of article 4, part 2, section 13. This section of the constitution provides that:
'Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title; but if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the title.'
The title of the Arizona Uniform Narcotics Act of 1935 reads as follows:
'An act relating to narcotic drugs, and to make uniform the law with reference thereto.'
The above provision of the constitution has been considered by us in a number of cases, from the case of Laney v. State, 20 Ariz. 416, 181 P. 186, to State v. Harold, 74 Ariz. 210, 246 P.2d 178, and we have said that we would not declare a legislative act unconstitutional unless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of its unconstitutionality, and as we said in State v. Davey, 27 Ariz. 254, 232 P. 884, 885:
We said in In re Lewkowitz, 70 Ariz. 325, 220 P.2d 229, 233:
"* * * that the title of a statute need not be a complete index of its provisions, but it is sufficient if it so indicates its substance and scope as reasonably to lead to an inquiry into its content.' * * *
* * *
* * *
'* * * that the title is sufficient if it is germane and indicates, in a general way at least, what is to follow in the way of legislation.'
The above pronouncements have been frequently made by this court, but counsel says there is nothing in the title of the act in question to put one on inquiry as to whether it embraced the imposition of penalties for its violation. First, let us observe that we have held in State v. Harold, supra, that such inclusion is not necessary, citing Dennis v. Jordan, 71 Ariz. 430, 229 P.2d 692; and secondly, the evil effect of the use of narcotic drugs upon the health and morals of an individual or of a people is so generally known that the court will take judicial notice thereof, and we believe that because of the general knowledge of its evils the title to the act above quoted would suggest to the ordinarily reasonable and prudent person that the legislation would be regulative and restrictive in character and would provide punishments for its violation.
We held in In re Lewkowitz, supra, that the title of the act creating the incorporated Bar of Arizona, which reads:
'An act relating to the state bar, and creating a public corporation to be known as 'The State Bar of Arizona".
was broad enough to include in the body of the act provisions relating to the admission, discipline, nd disbarment of members of the Bar and to provide the procedure therefor. We therefore hold that the title in the instant case is sufficiently broad and inclusive to meet the requirements of article 4, part 2, section 13 of the state constitution.
The second assignment of error is directed at the alleged misconduct of the assistant county attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rodriguez
...are `satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt' that the statute fails to comply with the Constitution." Id., quoting State v. Gastelum, 75 Ariz. 271, 273, 255 P.2d 203, 204 (1953). ¶ 23 Relying on Apprendi and its progeny, Rodriguez asserts that "the effect of the Arizona statute is to authorize......
-
In re Leon G.
...unless we are "satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt" that the statute fails to comply with the Constitution. State v. Gastelum, 75 Ariz. 271, 273, 255 P.2d 203, 204 (1953). ¶ 10 We first examine the procedures and evidentiary standards of Arizona's SVP act.4 The statute defines an SVP as any......
-
White v. Kaibab Road Imp. Dist.
...that it will not strike down an act 'unless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of its unconstitutionality. . . .' State v. Gastelum, 75 Ariz. 271, 255 P.2d 203 (1953). In a further clarification of that standard the court also stated 'The burden therefore is . . . to convince us that the s......
-
Hudson v. Kelly, 5817
...its acknowledgment of the existence of this rule and had been guided by it. As late as March 30, 1953, in our case of State v. Gastelum, 75 Ariz. 271, 255 P.2d 203, 204, we said, referring to previous holdings of the '* * * we have said that we would not declare a legislative act unconstitu......