323 P.3d 736
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Bosworth was charged with shoplifting by removal under A.R.S. § 13-1805(A)(1).
- Municipal Court denied Bosworth’s request for a jury trial; the issue was constitutional.
- Superior Courtvacated and ordered a jury trial; State appealed.
- Arizona Supreme Court doctrine uses a two-step Derendal test to determine jury trial rights.
- Court analyzes whether shoplifting has a common law antecedent to preserve jury rights.
- Court concludes larceny is a common law antecedent to shoplifting and jury trial is preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misdemeanor shoplifting by removal entitles a jury trial. | Bosworth argues the right to jury trial attaches. | State contends no jury right for this misdemeanor. | Yes; Bosworth has a constitutional right to a jury trial. |
| Whether shoplifting by removal has a common law antecedent justifying a jury trial under Derendal. | State asserts no common law antecedent. | Bosworth asserts larceny is the antecedent. | Yes; larceny is a common law antecedent, preserving the jury trial right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416 (2005) (two-step Derendal test for jury trial rights; first prong if common law antecedent exists)
- Sulavka v. State, 223 Ariz. 208 (2009) (larceny as common law antecedent to shoplifting by concealment; substantial similarity of elements)
- Stoudamire v. Simon, 213 Ariz. 296 (2006) (de novo review of constitutional right to jury trial; offense-specific)
- Klausner, Phoenix City Prosecutor’s Office v. Klausner, 211 Ariz. 177 (2005) (territorial practice does not alter Derendal analysis)
- Espinosa (State v. Superior Court), 121 Ariz. 174 (1978) (discussion of shoplifting's relationship to common law)
- Pass v. State, 34 Ariz. 9 (1928) (common law larceny elements cited in Derendal analysis)