State v. Serrano, 2

Decision Date11 March 1985
Docket NumberCA-CR,No. 2,2
Citation145 Ariz. 498,702 P.2d 1343
PartiesThe STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Elier Conde SERRANO, Appellant. 3584.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals
Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by Bruce M. Ferg, Tucson, for appellee
OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

Pursuant to his change of plea, the court convicted appellant of criminal trespass with a prior conviction, designated the conviction as a felony and placed appellant on three years' probation.

On March 24, 1984, at approximately 2 a.m., student Carlos O'Campo walked out of the Yuma dormitory at the University of Arizona and noticed appellant walking into some bushes which lined one side of the dorm. After watching appellant for a while, he noticed that appellant looked into one of the lighted windows. Although it had venetian blinds, there were "cracks in the window." Mr. O'Campo kept watching appellant and at one point noticed that appellant would hide behind the bushes when passing traffic lighted the area. After the traffic passed, appellant went back to the window.

O'Campo went to obtain the help of a friend and after watching appellant for approximately five minutes, O'Campo and his friend grabbed him and held him for the arrival of the police.

On March 26, 1984, a petition to revoke probation was filed. The petition alleged that on or about March 24, 1984, appellant committed the offense of criminal trespass. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that appellant had violated his probation. Appellant was continued on probation, subject to incarceration in the Pima County Jail for four months.

Appellant first contends that our "peeping tom" statute, A.R.S. § 13-1504(A)(2) is unconstitutionally vague. He also contends that the state failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had violated the conditions of his probation. We do not agree with either of these contentions and therefore affirm.

A.R.S. § 13-1504(A)(2) provides that a person commits criminal trespass in the first degree by knowingly "entering any residential yard and, without lawful authority, looking into the residential structure thereon in reckless disregard of infringing on the inhabitant's right of privacy."

The threshold principles upon which we review the constitutionality of a statute are found in State v. Arnett, 119 Ariz. 38, 579 P.2d 542 (1978):

" * * * There is a presumption that the legislature acts constitutionally and when there is a reasonable, even though debatable, basis for the enactment of a statute, reviewing courts will uphold the act unless it is clearly unconstitutional. [citation omitted] Thus, the burden rests on one challenging the validity of a statute to establish that it infringes upon some constitutional guarantee or violates some constitutional principle...." 119 Ariz. at 48, 579 P.2d 542.

Furthermore, we will not declare a legislative act unconstitutional unless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of its unconstitutionality. State v. Gastelum, 75 Ariz. 271, 255 P.2d 203 (1953).

The basic rule in reviewing a statute for vagueness is to determine whether the offense is defined in terms that people of average intelligence can understand, since no one may be required at the risk of his liberty to speculate as to the meaning of a penal statute. State v. Bateman, 113 Ariz. 107, 547 P.2d 6, cert. denied 429 U.S. 864, 97 S.Ct. 170, 50 L.Ed.2d 143 (1976). However, a penal statute is not unconstitutionally vague simply because it uses terms with which the average person is unfamiliar. State v. Varela, 120 Ariz. 596, 587 P.2d 1173 (1978).

In advancing these arguments, appellant first questions what the statute means when it says that "reckless disregard" of an inhabitant's privacy must be present.

A general definition of recklessness that is generally applicable throughout the Arizona Criminal Code is contained in A.R.S. § 13-105(5):

"(c) 'Recklessly' means, with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that a circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard of such risk constitutes a gross...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 17646-PR
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1985
    ... ... We granted review to consider the law of this state with regard to the employment-at-will doctrine. The issues we address are: ...         2. If "public policy" or some other doctrine does form the basis for such an action, how is it ... ...
  • State v. Tober
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 26, 1991
    ...is presumed to act constitutionally. E.g., State v. Tocco, 156 Ariz. 116, 119, 750 P.2d 874, 877 (1988); State v. Serrano, 145 Ariz. 498, 500, 702 P.2d 1343, 1345 (App.1985). The state contends that these securities statutes should be interpreted broadly because the legislature intended to ......
  • State v. Feld, 1
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • August 4, 1987
    ...since no one may be required, at the risk of his liberty, to speculate as to the meaning of a penal statute. State v. Serrano, 145 Ariz. 498, 702 P.2d 1343 (App.1985). In Tocco, the defendant argued that the crime of leading organized crime, as set forth in A.R.S. § 13-2308, was unconstitut......
  • State v. Oaks
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • December 22, 2004
    ...104 P.3d 163209 Ariz. 432The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, ... Derek Scott OAKS, Appellant ... No. -0386 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department A ... December 22, 2004 ... As Corrected January 14, 2005.        104 P.3d 164 Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General By ... See State v. Serrano, 145 Ariz. 498, 501, 702 P.2d 1343, 1346 (App.1985) (reasonable person standard of conduct "is objectively based"). This standard does not take into ... ...
  • 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