State v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 13 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 923 |
| Citation | 129 P.2d 916,59 Ariz. 411 |
| Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. G. W. PIERCE, Appellant |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, and Mr. Albert M. Garcia, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.
Mr. V L. Hash, for Appellant.
G. W Pierce, defendant, was informed against by the county attorney for the crime of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." Section 43-1008, Arizona Code 1939. There are six separate counts in the information, each count setting up different specific acts of a sexual nature committed upon different persons, and each one of which acts taken alone would constitute the offence charged. The case was tried before a jury, and at the end of the evidence defendant moved the court to instruct the jury to return verdicts of not guilty upon each count. The court granted the motion as to counts one, two and four, and denied it as to the other three, submitting the case as to counts three, five and six to the jury under instructions which are not questioned. A verdict of guilty was returned on each of these three counts, and after the usual preliminaries, this appeal was taken.
There are four assignments of error, which we shall consider in their order. The first is that the information was void in that it charged distinct and separate offenses committed at different times and places and against different persons. Section 44-725A, Arizona Code 1939, reads as follows:
(Italics ours.)
The information complies fully with the rule set forth in this section, but defendant contends, in substance, that the section itself is void, in that it denies him a substantive right given him by the Constitution and laws of the state of Arizona.
The legislature of the state of Arizona, by chapter 8, of the session laws of 1939, authorized this court to adopt rules of both civil and criminal procedure governing the practice in all courts, but expressly provided, "Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant." If, therefore, section 44-725A, supra, is purely procedural in its nature, its adoption was authorized by chapter 8, supra. If, on the other hand, its affects a substantive right of the defendant it is without the provisions of the statute and not within the inherent power of the court to make rules of procedure.
We have very recently had before us the question of the validity of chapter 8, supra, and in the case of Burney v. Lee, ante, p. 360, 129 P.2d 308, we have held that as a result of such statute the legislature has withdrawn from the field of court procedure, and that unquestionably since said withdrawal the court has the indisputable inherent power of adopting procedural rules as it thinks proper for the conduct of judicial business, both criminal and civil.
Counsel for defendant has not suggested any manner wherein the rule authorizing the joining of two or more different offenses of the same class of crime under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cutshaw
...18, 386 P.2d 461 (1963); Birdsell v. State, 205 Tenn. 631, 330 S.W.2d 1 (1959); Annot., 77 A.L.R.2d 841, at 907; cf. State v. Pierce, 59 Ariz. 411, 129 P.2d 916 (1942). In view of this leniency shown by the courts to the introduction of evidence in a contributing case, and the broad encompa......
-
State v. Duren
...1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), and the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court of Arizona in State v. Pierce, 59 Ariz. 411, 129 P.2d 916 (1942), considered an attack on its rule authorizing joinder of different offenses under separate counts, charging it was viola......
-
State v. Jerousek
...minor witnesses. State v. McFarlin, 110 Ariz. 225, 517 P.2d 87 (1973); State v. King, 66 Ariz. 42, 182 P.2d 915 (1947); State v. Pierce, 59 Ariz. 411, 129 P.2d 916 (1942). In McFarlin, supra, asking leading questions during the direct examination of the victim of a child molestation was uph......
-
State v. Uriarte, 1 CA-CR 97-0351.
...the rules as are pertinent to this case cannot be reconciled, we give effect to the constitutional guarantee. See State v. Pierce, 59 Ariz. 411, 414, 129 P.2d 916, 917 (1942) (Procedural court rules will yield in the presence of "a specific constitutional provision affecting the matter."); ......