State v. Wright
Decision Date | 01 February 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 9057--PR,9057--PR |
Citation | 103 Ariz. 52,436 P.2d 601 |
Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Marlene WRIGHT, Appellant. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., James S. Tegart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robt. K. Corbin, County Atty., Maricopa County, by Patrick Eldridge, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for appellee.
Kaplan & Wilks, by Alan J. Rubin, and Anne Kappes, Phoenix, for appellant.
S. Leonard Scheff, Tucson, Chief Counsel Arizona Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.
This case came to us on a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, Division 1, reported at 5 Ariz.App. 357, 427 P.2d 338 (1967). The American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief amicus curiae in support of defendant-appellant's position. We granted the petition primarily for the purpose of re-examining our position in Rascon v. State, 47 Ariz. 501, 512, 57 P.2d 304 (1936). There, as in the case at bar, the prosecuting attorney, while in the presence of the jury questioned defendant regarding a plea of guilty given earlier in the same proceeding, but subsequently withdrawn with leave of court and substituted with a not guilty plea. In both cases, the respective courts ruled that it was not error to admit such evidence. On appeal of the instant case to the Court of Appeals, that court approved the admissibility of the withdrawn plea of guilty in view of our position in Rascon.
The facts are as follows: Defendant Marlene Wright was associated with Nancy McClannahan in a business enterprise called 'Candid Cartoons, Ltd.' Defendant was the owner of the business and Nancy McClannahan was a bookkeeper and office manager. The business had an office in the city of Phoenix, Arizona and was primarily in the field of commercial art and writing of advertisements.
Defendant allegedly wrote a series of checks on more than one account which were returned for reasons of 'no sufficient funds,' 'irregular signature', and 'account closed.' After an investigation by the Phoenix Police Department and after questioning of the defendant, at which time she initialed the checks she admitted signing, defendant was charged with passing two specific checks on 'no account' contrary to A.R.S. § 13--316. At the close of trial, the charge as to one check was dismissed, and the charge as to the other was submitted to the jury. The check on which defendant was convicted was passed to the Bi-Lo Market. Its store clerk and store manager identified defendant as the one passing the check. The check was made payable to Nancy McClannahan, drawn on the account of Candid Cartoons, Ltd., and signed by Marlene Wright. Bi-Lo Market 'okayed' the check on defendant's endorsement after she explained that Nancy McClannahan was her professional name and Marlene Wright, the name on her driver's license, was her real name. Defendant allegedly passed other checks. Evidence of these checks was admitted in the trial as evidencing a common plan or scheme.
During the arraignment and in the presence of counsel, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime charged. At the time set for sentencing, the court allowed the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea and enter a plea of not guilty. Evidence of this withdrawn guilty plea was elicited by the State on cross-examination of defendant during trial as follows:
'A Yes, that is true.'
Though defense counsel made no objection to the question, the admission of the evidence of the withdrawn guilty plea was assigned as error both in the motion for new trial and in this appeal.
In discussing this question in Rascon, we said:
'At the close of the corss-examination of the defendant the county attorney asked him this question: 'Isn't it a fact that heretofore, in this court, in this cause, you have entered a plea of guilty to first degree murder?' but the court, upon the objection of defendant's counsel, declined to permit him to answer it. The defendant contends, however, that the mere asking of the question prejudiced his rights before the jury and deprived him of a fair and impartial trial, though no authorities are cited upholding this position. The state, upon the other hand, takes the position that the question was proper and, this being true, that the answer, much less the mere asking of the question, could not have had any prejudicial effect. In support of this position it cites People v. Boyd, 67 Cal.App. 292, 227 P. 783, 787, in which the Supreme Court of California held that when a plea of guilty is withdrawn and one of not guilty substituted the fact that the defendant pleaded guilty is admissible, and in reaching this conclusion specifically overruled People v. Ryan, 82 Cal. 617, 23 P. 121, stating that the announcement therein was out of harmony with what the court believed to be the correct and the better rule. In holding a plea of guilty to be an admission of the truth of the charge against him, which, with the other evidence, was properly left to the consideration of the jury, the court said:
. 47 Ariz. at 512--513, 57 P.2d at 309.
This same question was raised in State v. Thomas, 78 Ariz. 52, 65, 275 P.2d 408 (1954), but was not passed upon since felony arraignment before a magistrate does not require a plea, and the statement by defendant 'I don't need a lawyer, I am guilty, I killed the women,' was a voluntary, unrequired judicial confession.
There are two distinct lines of authority on the question whether a plea of guilty to a charge subsequently withdrawn by leave of court is admissible against the defendant in a trial on the same charge. Annotation, 86 A.L.R.2d 327; see State v. Weekly, 41 Wash.2d 727, 252 P.2d 246 (1952). On appeal defendant argues that our holding in Rascon an adaption of the 'minority view.' Similarly, Amicus takes the position that Rascon probably did not correctly state the law as it existed then and certainly does not represent the law as it exists now, even without reference to constitutional principles.
Rule 188, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. provides that '(t)he court may in its discretion at any time before sentence permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn * * *.' It is totally inconsistent with this rule to permit a plea of guilty to be later reinstated in the form of evidence. The very fact of withdrawal implies that the plea had been improperly received or that there should be an actual trial of the accused because it is doubtful whether the plea was made with the understanding and intent to confess a crime which the accused had actually committed. Once it has been decided that a plea may be withdrawn because there may be a possible danger of injustice in acting upon it, the accused should be placed in the same position as if the plea had never been made. People v. Spitaleri, 9 N.Y.2d 168, 212 N.Y.S.2d 53, 173 N.E.2d 35, 86 A.L.R.2d 322 (1961) (overruling People v. Steinmetz, 240 N.Y. 411, 148 N.E. 597 (1925)); but see dissenting opinion in People v. Steinmetz, supra, 148 N.E. at 600. The United States Supreme Court in Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927), took a similar position with which we are in accord. It stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. DeGraffenreid
... Page 317 ... 173 N.W.2d 317 ... 19 Mich.App. 702 ... PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... David DeGRAFFENREID, Defendant-Appellant ... Docket No. 4242 ... Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division ... Jackson v. Myers (C.A.3, 1967), 374 F.2d 707; Commonwealth ex rel. Robinson v. Myers (1967), 427 Pa. 104, 233 A.2d 220; State v. Wright (1968), 103 Ariz. 52, 436 P.2d 601; Sims v. Balkcom (1964), 220 Ga. 7, 136 S.E.2d 766; People v. Morris (1954), 3 Ill.2d 437, 121 N.E.2d 810; Greer ... ...
-
State v. Miller
... ... 589, 592, 340 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1986) ("The public interest of encouraging settlement of criminal cases without necessity of trial favors permitting an accused to plead guilty to the offense charged without prejudicing his position if it is later withdrawn.") (quoting State v. Wright, 103 Ariz. 52, 436 P.2d 601, 604-05 (1968)) ... However, a defendant may not attempt to create a firm commitment out of plea negotiations. State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 49, 476 S.E.2d 683, 687 (1996). The State is not bound to accept a defendant's terms simply because a ... ...
-
State v. Arrowood, 4304.
... ... 589, 592, 340 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1986) ("The public interest of encouraging settlement of criminal cases without necessity of trial favors permitting an accused to plead guilty to the offense charged without prejudicing his position if it is later withdrawn.") (quoting State v. Wright, 103 Ariz. 52, 436 P.2d 601, 604-05 (1968)) ... However, a defendant may not attempt to create a firm commitment out of plea negotiations. State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 49, 476 S.E.2d 683, 687 (1996). The State is not bound to accept a defendant's terms simply because a ... ...
-
State v. Gary
... ... See Heim v. United States, 47 App.D.C. 485, 493, cert. denied, 247 U.S. 522, 38 S.Ct. 583, 62 L.Ed. 1247 (1918); United States ex rel. Spears v. Rundle, 268 F.Supp. 691, 699 (E.D.Pa.1967), aff'd, 405 F.2d 1037 (3d Cir.1969); State v. Wright, 103 Ariz. 52, 56, 436 P.2d 601 (1968); People v. Quinn, 61 Cal.2d 551, 554-55, 393 P.2d 705, 39 Cal.Rptr. 393 (1964); Ely v. Haugh, 172 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Iowa 1969); State v. Hayes, 285 Minn. 199, 200-201, 172 N.W.2d 324 (1969); People v. Spitaleri, 9 N.Y.2d 168, 173, 212 N.Y.S.2d 53, 173 ... ...