State v. Shelley, 1 CA-CR 17-0037

At age 80, William Shelley—hard of hearing, poor vision, and unable to walk unaided—drove a van despite an MVD revocation of his license for failure to retake required tests.
While making a left turn from a stop sign in Kingman, his van was struck by a compact sedan traveling ~35 mph; the sedan rolled and caught fire, its driver rescued by a bystander.
A grand jury indicted Shelley for endangerment (Class 6 felony), criminal damage (Class 5 felony), and driving with a revoked license (misdemeanor).
At trial the State introduced MVD notices that Shelley needed to retake vision/written/driving tests and that his license had been revoked; Shelley testified he knew he could not safely drive.
A jury convicted Shelley of the two felonies; the court found him guilty of the misdemeanor and imposed concurrent sentences (longest two years).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Shelley)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for endangerment and criminal damage	Evidence showed Shelley knew of physical impairments and nonetheless drove, creating substantial risk of imminent death and property damage	Insufficient proof of recklessness; no evidence of degree of vision/hearing/driving loss	Affirmed — substantial evidence supported recklessness and the felonies
Admissibility of MVD notices	Notices were relevant to knowledge of risk and not unfairly prejudicial	Notices were impermissible; their admission was prejudicial	Affirmed — no fundamental error; Shelley’s testimony admitted same facts, waiving objection
Failure to instruct on criminal negligence	Not required; crimes charged require recklessness and negligence-based offenses are not criminalized here	Court should have instructed on lesser-included mental state (criminal negligence)	Affirmed — no duty to sua sponte give negligence instruction for these offenses
Prejudice/fundamental error from trial rulings	N/A	Trial errors (if any) were fundamental and deprived fair trial	Rejected — Shelley failed to show fundamental, prejudicial error

State v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 31 (App. 2013) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency)
State v. Allen, 235 Ariz. 72 (App. 2014) (substantial-evidence standard)
State v. Martinson, 241 Ariz. 93 (App. 2016) (defining substantial evidence test)
State v. Palmer, 229 Ariz. 64 (App. 2012) (circumstantial evidence and jury inferences)
Miller v. Schafer, 102 Ariz. 457 (1967) (waiver of objection by later admission)
State v. Butler, 230 Ariz. 465 (App. 2012) (fundamental-error framework)
State v. Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. 254 (App. 2017) (unfair prejudice balancing under Rule 403)
State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536 (1997) (definition of unfair prejudice)
State v. James, 231 Ariz. 490 (App. 2013) (when lesser-mental-state instructions are required)
State v. Juarez-Orci, 236 Ariz. 520 (App. 2015) (forfeiture and review of jury instructions)
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 198 Ariz. 394 (App. 2000) (relevance standard)