State v. Parker, 5080-PR

Decision Date26 January 1981
Docket NumberNo. 5080-PR,5080-PR
Citation128 Ariz. 97,624 P.2d 294
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee/Cross Appellant, v. Mark Anthony PARKER, Appellant/Cross Appellee.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, Diane M. Ramsey, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, Stephen D. Neely, Pima County Atty., by Paul S. Banales, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, for appellee/cross appellant.

Richard C. Henry, Tucson, for appellant/cross appellee.

HOLOHAN, Vice Chief Justice.

Mark Anthony Parker was indicted on a charge of manslaughter, but he was convicted after a trial by jury of negligent homicide. He appealed and the court of appeals affirmed the conviction. State v. Parker, 127 Ariz. ---, 624 P.2d 294 (App.1981) (2CA-CR 1941 filed July 30, 1980). We granted appellant's petition for review.

The facts developed at trial were that the defendant fired a .22 calibre rifle at a porch light on a residence in the city of Tuscon. Instead of hitting the porch light, the shot went low and through the front door of the apartment striking and killing a six-month old baby lying on a couch in the apartment.

The defendant was indicted on a charge of manslaughter. After the indictment was returned, the prosecution added an allegation concerning the dangerous nature of the offense charged. The added allegation stated that the commission of the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous ins "to wit: Winchester .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle." Over appellant's objection, the trial court ruled that if the jury returned a guilty verdict, the court would decide the allegation of dangerousness.

The trial proceeded before a jury. At the close of all evidence, the appellant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the charge of manslaughter. The state responded by moving to amend the indictment to allege negligent homicide. The trial court granted the state's motion.

The amended charge was submitted to the jury, and they found the defendant guilty of negligent homicide. The trial court refused over the objection of the defense to submit the allegation of the dangerous nature of the offense to the jury.

A number of issues were raised by the defendant in his appeal. We believe that all his issues except one have been answered adequately in the opinion of the court of appeals. This court accepted review to determine whether the allegation of the dangerous nature of a felony must be submitted to the jury.

The statute at issue states:

" § 13-604 Dangerous and repetitive offenders

K. The penalties prescribed by this section shall be substituted for the penalties otherwise authorized by law if the previous conviction or the dangerous nature of the felony is charged in the indictment or information and admitted or found by the trier of fact. The court in its discretion may allow the allegation of a prior conviction or the dangerous nature of the felony at any time prior to trial .... For the purposes of this subsection, 'Dangerous nature of the felony' means a felony involving the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury upon another."

The defendant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to submit the issue of the allegation of the dangerous nature of the felony to the jury. We agree.

The pertinent language in subsection K provides for the additional penalties if "the dangerous nature of the offense is ... admitted or found by the trier of fact."

In State v. Martinez, 127 Ariz. 444, 622 P.2d 3 (1980), we noted in passing that the higher range of punishment would be employed if the dangerous nature of the felony was alleged in the indictment and found to exist by the trier of fact.

Our decision in State v. Tresize, 127 Ariz. ---, 623 P.2d 1 (1980), is not in conflict with State v. Martinez, supra, or the statute at issue. In Tresize, the defendant was charged by indictment with a count for armed robbery which specifically alleged that a pistol was used in the commission of the offense. The robbery count stated in pertinent part: "JACK LOUIS TRESIZE'S taking or retaining the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • State v. Fisher
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1984
    ...included offense of manslaughter. In State v. Parker, 128 Ariz. 107, 624 P.2d 304 (App.1980), vacated in part on other grounds, 128 Ariz. 97, 624 P.2d 294 (1981), the Court of Appeals determined that the only difference between manslaughter and negligent homicide is an accused's mental stat......
  • State v. Joyner
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • May 31, 2007
    ...necessarily, that they had been convicted of violent crimes as defined in §§ 13-901.01(B) and 13-604.04. Cf. State v. Parker, 128 Ariz. 97, 99, 624 P.2d 294, 296 (1981) (dangerous nature allegation "must be submitted to the jury for a separate finding unless an element of the offense charge......
  • State v. Ortiz
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • October 16, 2015
    ...an allegation and requires proof’ of dangerousness” when determining if dangerousness inherent in offense), quotingState v. Parker,128 Ariz. 97, 98, 624 P.2d 294, 296 (1981).¶ 65 Ortiz argues “[t]he jury was not asked to determine any of these factors, [as] they were not inherent in the ver......
  • State v. Smith, 6220
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • September 10, 1985
    ...is required where an element of the offense charged requires proof of the dangerous nature of the felony. See State v. Parker, 128 Ariz. 97, 624 P.2d 294 (1981) (specific finding of dangerousness required where offense charged was negligent homicide). Compare State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT