State v. Lara, 240 Ariz. 327

Monica Lara was charged with shoplifting under A.R.S. § 13-1805(A),(I) — shoplifting elevated to a class 4 felony based on two or more prior shoplifting convictions within five years.
The indictment alleged Lara had two prior shoplifting convictions (2009 and 2012); certified convictions were admitted at trial.
Lara moved to bifurcate so the jury would decide basic shoplifting guilt before any evidence of priors; the superior court denied the motion.
At trial witnesses and Lara’s admission supported the substantive shoplifting charge; the jury also found the State proved the two prior convictions element.
Lara appealed, arguing the priors were sentencing enhancements (requiring bifurcation), not elements of the offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior shoplifting convictions under A.R.S. § 13-1805(I) are elements of the charged offense or mere sentencing enhancements	State: priors are elements that elevate the offense to a class 4 felony and must be proved to the jury	Lara: priors are sentencing enhancements; court should bifurcate and delay priors until after guilt on basic shoplifting	Court held priors are elements of the offense; bifurcation was not required and admission of priors at trial was proper

Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999) (elements must be charged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Geschwind, 136 Ariz. 360 (1983) (prior conviction characterized as an element obviates entitlement to bifurcation)
Robbins v. Darrow, 214 Ariz. 91 (App. 2006) (distinguishes when priors serve only classification/sentencing purposes)
State v. Brown, 204 Ariz. 405 (App. 2003) (statute portion that creates a greater offense elevates the substantive crime)
State v. Burns, 237 Ariz. 1 (2015) (severance may be required where admission of a prior is unduly prejudicial to other counts)
State v. Newnom, 208 Ariz. 507 (App. 2004) (prior convictions as elements in aggravated domestic violence context)
State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court (Begody), 171 Ariz. 468 (App. 1992) (trial court lacks discretion to bifurcate proof of an element)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (aggravating circumstances can function as elements, but postverdict jury procedure discussed)