State v. Parker, 2070
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Citation | 106 Ariz. 54,470 P.2d 461 |
| Docket Number | No. 2070,2070 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael PARKER, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1970 |
Page 461
v.
Michael PARKER, Appellant.
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1970.
[106 Ariz. 55]
Page 462
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.James T. Bialac, Phoenix, for appellant.
McFARLAND, Justice.
Michael Parker--hereinafter referred to as defendant--was tried and convicted on two counts of child molesting of two sisters--the first count was molesting a girl twelve years of age--hereinafter designated as girl one; the second count on a girl nine years of age--hereinafter designated as girl two; and was sentenced to serve a term of three and a half to ten years in the Arizona State Penitentiary on each count, to run concurrently. From his conviction and sentence he appeals.
The defendant was originally charged with committing rape on the person of another sister, a 16-year-old mentally retarded girl--hereinafter designated as girl three, together with child molesting on girl one and girl two. Before the commencement of the trial the court dismissed the charge of rape on a motion of the county attorney, and defendant was tried on the amended complaint charging two counts of child molesting. The stepfather, Del-Mar Anderson, testified that he had been married to the mother of the children since 1965; that on the 16th day of July 1968 he was working at the Malco Service Station at 16th Street and Roma, Phoenix; that he was called on a service call to start a car outside the 'Branding Iron' on Indian School Road, where he met defendant, Michael Parker, at approximately 2:15 p.m.; that they had been fairly good friends; and defendant asked
'* * * if he could pick up the kids and take them over to his swimming pool again. He said he was going to pick up his wife and I said it was okay if he wanted to pick them up.'
He testified that defendant left shortly thereafter. He also testified that the children had previously gone swimming at defendant's home, which was located on Oregon Avenue. The girls, one and two, both testified that while they were in the swimming pool the defendant molested them. Girl one, who was thirteen years of age at the time of the trial, was examined on voir dire by the court and counsel. She explained the difference between the truth and a lie, and said that she knew she would be punished for telling a lie. She testified that while they were swimming the defendant put his
'* * * hand on my breasts with his right hand--left hand, and his right hand up the leg of my pants, my bathing suit.'
Girl two, when she was questioned on voir dire by the court and counsel, stated that one would be punished and confined for telling a lie, and that she could remember back and would tell the truth. She testified as to similar actions while defendant was teaching her to float, at which time he touched her 'sex' area.
The victims' brother, hereinafter designated as the brother, who was eleven years old at the time of the trial, was questioned on voir dire by the court and by counsel. He said he understood what it is to tell the truth and to tell a lie, and that the oath means that one telling a lie would be punished. He testified that he had seen defendant with his sister, girl three (the mentally retarded girl who was sixteen years of age), in the swimming pool; that defendant had his shorts down to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jerousek, 4398
...a six year old complaining witness without the aid of a psychiatric examination. See also State v. Attebery, supra, and State v. Parker, 106 Ariz. 54, 470 P.2d 461 (1970), in which the trial courts determined, without the aid of a psychiatric examination, that nine year old complaining witn......
-
State v. Quattrocchi, 95-343-C
...children living in the same household has been admitted in numerous cases in other jurisdictions, citing, inter alia, State v. Parker, 106 Ariz. 54, 470 P.2d 461 (1970); Staggers v. State, 120 Ga.App. 875, 172 S.E.2d 462 (1969); Commonwealth v. King, 387 Mass. 464, 441 N.E.2d 248 (1982), an......
-
State v. Macias, 1 CA-CR 15-0505
...("Contradictions or a hazy recollection of events goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.") (citing State v. Parker, 106 Ariz. 54, 56 (1970)). On this record, we find the victims' testimony was sufficient to provide clear and convincing evidence Macias committed the uncha......
-
State v. Jaramillo, 2788
...to one another that proof of one tends to establish the other. State v. Tacon, 107 Ariz. 353, 488 P.2d 973 (1971); State v. Parker, 106 Ariz. 54, 470 P.2d 461 (1970); State v. Turner, 104 Ariz. 469, 455 P.2d 443 (1969); State v. Phillips, Supra; State v. Hughes, Supra; State v. Berry, 101 A......