State of Arizona v. Gregory Charles Rhome
235 Ariz. 459
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Gregory Rhome failed to appear at a scheduled hearing in October 2012 and was charged with first-degree failure to appear under A.R.S. § 13-2507(A).
- At trial the jury heard testimony (the judge and Rhome’s counsel) and saw transcripts/minute entries showing Rhome was present when the date was set but absent at the hearing.
- The bench warrant originally displayed the underlying charges to the jury, but those charges were later redacted before the jury deliberated; the redacted record is what appears on appeal.
- The State did not introduce documentary or testimonial evidence at trial establishing that the underlying charge to which the hearing related was a felony.
- Rhome did not raise the specific sufficiency argument at trial; appellate review therefore proceeded for fundamental, prejudicial error.
- The court vacated Rhome’s conviction and sentence because the record lacks proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the underlying charge was a felony — an element of the offense charged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved the underlying hearing was "in connection with any felony" under § 13-2507(A) | State: classification of the underlying offense may be judicially noticed / is a legal question | Rhome: State failed to prove the underlying charge was a felony; no such evidence at trial | Held: Reversal — element not proven beyond reasonable doubt; conviction vacated |
| Whether the court or appellate court may take judicial notice of the offense classification on appeal | State: appellate court can take judicial notice of element (cites Sabino R.) | Rhome: taking judicial notice of an element would usurp jury fact-finding and violate constitutional right to jury trial | Held: Court rejects taking judicial notice of element here; judicial notice cannot remove element from jury’s role |
| Whether Smith supports treating felony classification as a court question (not jury) | State: Smith suggests classification is question of law for court | Rhome: Smith is distinguishable; it addressed out-of-state conviction impeachment, not elements of an offense | Held: Smith inapplicable; felony classification is an element to be proved to the jury |
| Whether redacted bench warrant or other trial record sufficed to show felony-level charges | State: bench warrant initially showed charges | Rhome: charges were redacted before jury deliberation; redacted record contains no felony designation | Held: Redaction prevented jury from considering charges; appellate record does not establish felony nature |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kasic, 228 Ariz. 228 (insufficiency review standard; convictions must rest on jury verdict as to each element)
- State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54 (a jury must find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578 (constitutional right to jury determination of guilt as to all elements)
- State v. Smith, 126 Ariz. 534 (distinguishable—addressed court determination of out-of-state offense classification for impeachment)
- In re Sabino R., 198 Ariz. 424 (judicial notice of court files in juvenile context where judge, not jury, is factfinder)
- United States v. Chapel, 41 F.3d 1338 (warning against usurping jury factfinding by judicial notice of elements)
- United States v. Mentz, 840 F.2d 315 (error where judicial notice effectively relieved government of proving an essential element)
- State v. May, 210 Ariz. 452 (inadmissible evidence may not establish an offense element)