State v. Bayardi
230 Ariz. 195
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Fannin charged in municipal court with driving with an impermissible drug in body under A.R.S. §28-1381(A)(3).
- Count II alleges drug/metabolite in body; Count I concerns DUI impairment (A.R.S. §28-1381(A)(1)) and is not at issue.
- Municipal court held 28-1381(D) is an affirmative defense; required Fannin to prove prescription drug use by preponderance.
- Superior court granted relief, holding 28-1381(D) is an affirmative defense; State challenged via special action.
- Court addresses statutory construction, defenses under Arizona law, and jurisdiction to review special actions; ultimately denies relief.
- Concurrence notes jurisdiction argument separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 28-1381(D) an affirmative defense? | State argues 28-1381(D) is an affirmative defense. | Fannin argues it's a justification or denies an element. | Yes; 28-1381(D) is an affirmative defense. |
| What burden applies to 28-1381(D)? | State contends preponderance of the evidence for prescription use. | Fannin contends beyond a reasonable doubt not required. | Burden on defendant to prove prescription use by preponderance. |
| Is 28-1381(D) a Chapter 4 justification defense? | State argues not a Chapter 4 justification defense. | Fannin argues it is akin to justification. | Not a Chapter 4 justification defense; affirmative defense. |
| Is the appellate court's jurisdiction proper for a special action? | State asserts special action jurisdiction exists. | Fannin argues jurisdiction to review special action. | Special action jurisdiction appropriate; jurisdiction acknowledged. |
| Does the majority decide jurisdiction over the minute entry appeal? | State seeks review of minute entry decision. | Fannin seeks relief on the rationale for defense. | Ruling on minute entry remains part of special action review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hammonds, 192 Ariz. 528 (App. 1998) (driving with drug/metabolite statute context)
- State v. Phillips, 178 Ariz. 368 (App. 1994) (scope of 28-1381(A)(3))
- State v. Rodriguez, 192 Ariz. 58 (App. 1998) (elements of offense; alibi/misidentification discussio)
- State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7 (Ariz. 2003) (denying element or responsibility concepts)
- State v. Fell, 203 Ariz. 186 (App. 2002) (Chapter 4 justification defenses not extended to Title 28)
- In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69 (App. 1994) (exceptional defenses burden; exceptions to offense statute)
- State ex rel. Romley v. Martin, 203 Ariz. 46 (App. 2002) (statewide importance; special action context)
- Hayes v. Continental Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (legislative intent; weight of non-legislator testimony)
- Sempre Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa County, 225 Ariz. 106 (App. 2010) (statutory construction; legislative intent)
- Larkin v. State ex rel. Rottas, 175 Ariz. 417 (App. 1992) (res judicata effect in special actions)