State v. Hon kalauli/kroll, 414 P.3d 690

Deliana Kroll was charged in municipal court with class 1 misdemeanor theft for allegedly riding a shuttle without paying, plus disorderly conduct; the State moved for a bench trial.
Municipal court denied the State’s motion, ruling misdemeanor theft is jury-eligible; the State sought special action relief in superior court, which denied relief. The State appealed/is seeking review.
The legal question: whether a defendant charged with misdemeanor theft (including theft of services) is entitled to a jury trial under Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23, which preserves the right to jury trials as it existed at statehood.
Arizona’s theft statute, A.R.S. § 13-1802, is a unified offense listing multiple means (subsections) of committing theft, including theft of services; the statute consolidated larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, etc.
The State argued theft of services lacks a common-law larceny antecedent (notably asportation/asportation of tangible property), so some subsections should be ineligible for jury trial; Kroll argued theft is a single crime and therefore jury-eligible because larceny was jury-eligible at common law.
The court emphasized the unitary nature of § 13-1802 and held the modern unified crime of theft is substantially similar in character to common-law larceny (unlawful deprivation of property), so defendants charged with theft (including misdemeanor theft of services) are entitled to jury trials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kroll)	Held
Whether misdemeanor theft (including theft of services) is jury-eligible under Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23	Theft of services lacks a common-law larceny antecedent (asportation/taking not applicable); subsections should be analyzed separately, so theft of services is not jury-eligible	Theft is a unified statutory crime; because larceny was jury-eligible at common law and theft consolidates those crimes, the entire unified crime is jury-eligible	The court held theft is a single unified offense substantially similar in character to common-law larceny; misdemeanor theft (including theft of services) is entitled to a jury trial

Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416 (2005) (Arizona Constitution preserves jury rights as they existed at statehood)
Sulavka v. State, 223 Ariz. 208 (App. 2009) (compare modern offense elements to jury-eligible common-law antecedent)
Bosworth v. Anagnost, 234 Ariz. 453 (App. 2014) (de novo review of jury-eligibility legal questions)
Tramble v. State, 144 Ariz. 48 (1985) (theft statute merges larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses into a single crime)
Cotten v. State, 228 Ariz. 105 (App. 2011) (theft is a unitary offense; charging need not specify subsection)
Pass v. State, 34 Ariz. 9 (1928) (common-law larceny elements include taking from possession and asportation)
State v. Paramo, 92 Ariz. 290 (1962) (affirming petty theft conviction after jury trial)
Bowden v. Nugent, 26 Ariz. 485 (1924) (jury-trial right applies to modern offenses of same character or grade as pre-statehood offenses)
Crowell v. Jejna, 215 Ariz. 534 (App. 2007) (analysis of whether modern offense elements are comparable to historical common-law offenses)
Buccellato v. Morgan, 220 Ariz. 120 (App. 2008) (elements need not be identical; must be of the same character)
State v. Winter, 146 Ariz. 461 (App. 1985) (criminal code commission commentary on consolidating theft offenses and simplifying prosecutions)