State of Arizona v. Joann Bon
338 P.3d 989
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- In Oct. 2012 two satellite-installation employees left tools in the open bed of their parked pickup; Joann Bon was observed reaching into the bed and took tools and equipment.
- The employees detained Bon and police found drug paraphernalia on her after arrest.
- A grand jury indicted Bon for third-degree burglary, theft (value found at $1,000–$2,000), and possession of drug paraphernalia; she was convicted on all counts.
- At trial Bon moved for acquittal arguing the open, unsecured pickup bed is not a "structure" under the burglary statute and that reaching into it is not an "entry." The trial court denied the motion and instructed the jury that a vehicle (including a truck bed) is a structure.
- The appellate issue: whether removing property from the open bed of a pickup truck qualifies as entry of a "structure" under A.R.S. § 13-1501(12) and thus supports third-degree burglary under § 13-1506(A)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pickup truck bed is a "structure" under § 13-1501(12) | State: truck (including its bed) is a "vehicle" and thus part of a structure; statute's plain text controls | Bon: open, unsecured truck bed is not the kind of "securable" part the statute contemplates and vehicle parts should be explicitly listed | Affirmed: truck bed is part of the vehicle/structure under the statute |
| Whether reaching into the truck bed constitutes "entry" under § 13-1501(3) | State: "entry" covers intrusion of any part of the body beyond external boundaries; reaching into bed qualifies | Bon: "external boundaries" ambiguous; rule of lenity favors defendant | Affirmed: reaching into bed intrudes past external boundaries and is an "entry" |
| Whether statutory language is ambiguous such that other interpretive aids or lenity apply | State: statutory definitions ("vehicle," "entry") make plain meaning controlling; no absurd result | Bon: plain reading yields absurd or unintended results (citing other jurisdictions) and omission of "any part" suggests bed should be excluded | Rejected: court finds language unambiguous here and applies plain meaning; lenity not triggered |
| Whether the "separately securable" phrase limits application to securable parts of vehicles | State: phrase limits only when two structures are attached; does not require each part of a single vehicle be separately securable | Bon: contends bed must be separately securable to qualify | Rejected: bed is part of the vehicle structure, so separate securability inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zinsmeyer, 222 Ariz. 612 (App. 2009) (treats truck as a vehicle within burglary analysis)
- State v. Gill, 235 Ariz. 418 (App. 2014) (parses § 13-1501(12) into three requirements and explains scope of "separately securable")
- State v. Hinden, 224 Ariz. 508 (App. 2010) (statutory interpretation principles; give effect to legislature's intent)
- State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 (App. 2003) (plain-language statutory interpretation governs absent ambiguity)
- State v. Petrak, 198 Ariz. 260 (App. 2000) (apply statutory definitions when provided)
- State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (App. 2011) (standard of review for denial of Rule 20 motion)
- State v. Office of Public Defender ex rel. Muqqddin, 285 P.3d 622 (N.M. 2012) (contrasting New Mexico court holding that plain meaning of "vehicle" did not extend burglary to pickup bed)