326 P.3d 331
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- In Oct. 2011 during Occupy Phoenix, Mack was charged under A.R.S. § 13-2906(A) for allegedly standing in a crosswalk and obstructing a public thoroughfare.
- Mack requested a jury trial in municipal court; the request was denied. He sought special action review in Maricopa Superior Court; relief was denied. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, treated as a special action.
- Central legal question: whether A.R.S. § 13-2906(A) has a common-law antecedent (public nuisance / highway obstruction) that entitles a defendant to a constitutional jury trial under Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23.
- The Derendal test governs: a statutory offense requires jury trial if an analogous common-law offense at statehood guaranteed a jury trial (elements must be substantially similar).
- The court analyzed the statutory offense (reckless interference; permits a "legal privilege" defense) versus common-law public nuisance/highway obstruction (historically strict or no mens rea; reasonableness/necessity defenses but no crown-granted privilege).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 13-2906(A) is grounded in a common-law antecedent that guarantees a constitutional right to jury trial | Mack: statute corresponds to common-law public nuisance (highway obstruction); common law was indictable and entitled defendants to jury trials | State: "public nuisance" is a broad residual category; statute differs materially (mens rea and "legal privilege") from common-law nuisance | Court: Held no. The statute and common-law public nuisance do not share substantially similar elements; no constitutional right to jury trial under § 13-2906(A). |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoudamire v. Simon, 213 Ariz. 296 (App. 2006) (standards for de novo review of jury-right questions)
- Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416 (2005) (test for common-law antecedent requiring substantially similar elements)
- Crowell v. Jejna, 215 Ariz. 534 (App. 2007) (elements need not be identical but must be substantially similar)
- Ottaway v. Smith, 210 Ariz. 490 (App. 2005) (historical analysis limited to whether an analog existed at common law)
- Abuhl v. Howell, 212 Ariz. 513 (App. 2006) (distinguishing common-law offenses from statutory crimes)
- State v. Bayardi, 230 Ariz. 195 (App. 2012) (procedural precedent on treating appeals as special actions)