State v. Gordon, 1068
| Decision Date | 28 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 1068,1068 |
| Citation | 79 Ariz. 184,285 P.2d 758 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Arthur Leslie GORDON, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Robert Morrison, Atty. Gen., L. Alton Riggs, Spe. Asst. Atty. Gen., Wm. P. Mahoney, Jr., Maricopa County Atty., Lawrence C. Cantor, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for appellant.
Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, and John P. Frank, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the State of Arizona from an order granting defendant-appellee, Arthur Leslie Gordon's motion to quash a direct information charging him with the offense of 'Negligent Homicide'. We will refer to the parties as the 'State' and defendant.
We thoroughly agree with defense counsel that 'the case is in an odd procedural posture', for actually it appears the trial court made this ruling in a left-handed and unorthodox attempt to foist upon us for determination a legal question which it should have determined according to its best light, 'letting the chips fall where they may'. We point out that Rule 412, Rules Cr.Proc., Section 44-2401, A.C.A.1939, presents the only method by which an advisory opinion on a question of law in a criminal case may be obtained from this court.
By an amended direct information for negligent homicide, a high misdemeanor, the county attorney charged defendant in count No. 1, as follows:
'* * * The said Arthur Leslie Gordon on or about the 26th day of December, 1953, * * * did then and there wilfully and unlawfully operate a motor vehicle, to-wit: 1948 Buick Sedan, by driving such vehicle in reckless disregard of the safety of others and by reason of such unlawful disregard of the safety of others and by reason of such unlawful operation of such vehicle, did cause the death of one Margaret Grace Sandige, a human being, who died on the 24th day of December, 1953, in violation of A.C.A.1939, 66-155; * * *.'
The second count, in identical language, charges defendant with causing (on the same date) '* * * the death of one Anna Josephine Sandige,-who died on the 25th day of December, 1953. * * *'
Defendant, represented by counsel, was arraigned in open court and entered pleas of not guilty to both counts. The case was then set for trial and after several continuances came on for trial September 15, 1954. At that time defendant orally moved to quash the information, which motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial.
At the close of the State's case defendant moved for a directed verdict and apparently convinced the trial court the State had failed to prove defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the accident and resulting deaths and that such was an essential element of the offense under the negligent homicide statute. However, instead of granting the motion for a directed verdict as it should have done, if of the opinion that its conclusion was legally sound, the court induced defendant to waive any plea of jeopardy and renew his motion to quash the information which latter motion was then granted. The court expressed the thought that the question of interpretation of the statute as to the requirement of proximate cause could then be determined by this court. This expectation was ill-founded. Doubtless counsel for the State, upon sober reflection realized that the proximate cause question could not properly be raised or determined on this record. Hence its assignments of error present only the superficial questions raised by the original motion to quash. As we are of the opinion that we cannot properly pass upon the proximate cause question, we will not examine the evidence but will direct ourselves solely to the sufficiency of the information.
By a typographical error both counts of the information as originally drawn alleged that the defendant committed the acts charged on December 26, 1953. This created an impossibility as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mallory
...The Court cited a line of authority supporting that proposition. State v. Burgess, 82 Ariz. 200, 310 P.2d 822 (1957); State v. Gordon, 79 Ariz. 184, 285 P.2d 758 (1955); State v. Poole, 59 Ariz. 44, 122 P.2d 415 (1942); Adkins v. State, 42 Ariz. 534, 28 P.2d 612 (1934). Section (B) of Rule ......
-
State v. Miller
...or information in the language of the statute is sufficient. State v. Burgess (1957) 82 Ariz. 200, 310 P.2d 822; State v. Gordon (1955) 79 Ariz. 184, 285 P.2d 758; State v. Poole (1942) 59 Ariz. 44, 122 P.2d and Adkins v. State (1934) 42 Ariz. 534, 28 P.2d 612. We therefore hold that all in......
-
State v. Morf, 1084
...by driving 'in reckless disregard of the safety of others' is guilty of the high misdemeanor of negligent homicide. State v. Gordon, 79 Ariz. 184, 285 P.2d 758, 759. If this is the same type of criminal negligence as that previously required for conviction of the felony, then the laws are c......
-
Berger v. Bhend, 5780
... ... intended to and did convey the exact land described in their deeds, and that under such a state of facts the Court cannot grant relief by reformation.' ... The land was described ... ...