State v. Torres
| Decision Date | 19 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CR,1 |
| Citation | 750 P.2d 908,156 Ariz. 150 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael Scott TORRES, Appellant. 10774. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellant was indicted on three counts of aggravated assault in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2). A jury found him not guilty of Counts I and III but guilty of attempted aggravated assault on Count II. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court should have given the jury a lesser included offense instruction on assault, as opposed to aggravated assault.
After an altercation in the parking lot of a bar, the defendant followed the victim and several friends to the victim's apartment complex, where he approached the victim, pointed a .22 caliber pistol at him, and threatened to shoot him. A police officer subsequently came upon the scene and shot the defendant. The victim suffered no physical injury.
At trial, the victim testified that during the assault, the defendant pointed the gun away from him and fired one shot to prove that the gun was not fake:
Q [by defense counsel] In any event, at some point in time didn't you tell him something about the gun not being real?
A Not that I can remember.
Q Do you remember him telling you that this is not a toy?
A Yeah.
Q And that immediately after that do you remember hearing the pop?
A Around there, yes.
Q So at some point in time did you reach the--push the gun away or grab it?
A I pushed it away once.
Q And was it at that point in time that [the defendant] told you that the gun is not a toy?
A Yeah.
The victim then testified that during the assault he believed that the gun was fake:
Q [by defense counsel] You indicated earlier, did you not, during interrogation by the police that you felt the gun was not real until after the events occurred, correct?
A Correct.
Q And the gun that you saw you thought was a fake, a toy gun?
A Right.
Q And during the time that [the defendant] was there, you did not feel that that was a real gun?
A Well, it was mixed emotion, but yeah, mostly I did not feel it was, because of the pop sound I heard it made me feel it wasn't that.
Q Even before you felt it was a toy gun, the man was trying to shine you on?
A Yeah, they were just joking around, trying to scare us.
Q Even after the pop, to you it didn't sound like a real gun, correct?
A Correct.
Q And when was it that you first learned that it was, in fact, a real gun?
A Not until like, you know, the next time that I went and spoke--
Q To the police or someone?
A To the police or my roommate, spoke with him, and they had mentioned to him it was a real gun.
* * *
* * *
Q [by the prosecutor] At the time this was going on, were you sure in your own mind that it was a fake gun?
A No, I wasn't sure, but that's what I thought.
Q What emotions were going through you at this time? How did you feel?
A It just all happened so fast. You were just scared and then there was a gun there being pointed towards you, and then the cap sound and stuff. It wasn't until afterwards when I thought it was fake, you know, but the emotion that I had during that was just everything was happening so fast, you know, you were scared....
The defendant requested that the court give a lesser included offense instruction on the crime of assault. The trial judge refused this request. On appeal, the defendant argues that he was entitled to the instruction because during the assault the victim did not believe that the defendant had a real gun and therefore could not fear injury from the gun. While we acknowledge that the evidence would support a finding that the victim was not afraid of the gun, we disagree that the defendant was entitled to the requested instruction.
A person commits assault by intentionally placing another in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury. A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(2). The crime is raised to aggravated assault if the defendant uses a deadly weapon. A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2). Therefore, in this case, the extra element distinguishing the lesser included offense of assault from the greater offense, aggravated assault, is the use of a deadly weapon. See State v. Tims, 143 Ariz. 196, 693 P.2d 333 (1985). A gun is a deadly weapon. A.R.S. § 13-105(10). If the use of a gun is not disputed, the defendant is not entitled to a lesser included instruction. Tims, 143 Ariz. at 199, 693 P.2d at 336.
The defendant argues that, because the crime of assault requires proof that the victim be placed in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury, the crime of aggravated assault requires proof that the victim have a reasonable apprehension that he might be injured by a deadly weapon. A victim's perception of the dangerousness of a deadly weapon used during an assault is not an element of aggravated assault under A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2). All that is required is that the victim reasonably apprehend physical injury pursuant to the assault statute, A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(2). State v. Morgan, 128 Ariz. 362, 367, 625 P.2d 951, 956 (App.1981). There must be an actual, subjective apprehension of injury, State v. Angle, 149 Ariz. 499, 720 P.2d 100 (App.1985), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 149 Ariz. 478, 720 P.2d 79 (1986), but the apprehension need not extend to the fear of the gun. 1 To hold otherwise would undermine the rationale behind the aggravated assault statute.
In State v. Herkshan, 105 Ariz. 394, 465 P.2d 587 (1970), the court held that a defendant could receive an increased penalty for committing an aggravated battery while armed with a gun, even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hansen
...included offense of assault from the greater offense, aggravated assault, is the use of a deadly weapon.” State v. Torres, 156 Ariz. 150, 152, 750 P.2d 908, 910 (App.1988). We refer to the contradictory verdict forms here as an ambiguous verdict, following People v. Carbajal, 56 Cal.4th 521......
- HCZ CONST. v. FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL
-
State v. Thompson
...the deadly weapon; it is enough if the defendant commits the assault while he has "immediate control" of it. State v. Torres, 156 Ariz. 150, 152-53, 750 P.2d 908, 910-11 (App. 1988). The evidence shows these elements were met here.¶17 Thompson approached S.L.'s home and confronted B. Althou......
-
State v. Flores
...the State need not prove the victim was placed in reasonable apprehension of harm by a deadly weapon . See State v. Torres , 156 Ariz. 150, 152, 750 P.2d 908, 910 (App. 1988) ("There must be an actual, subjective apprehension of injury, but the apprehension need not extend to fear of the gu......