State v. Yazzie
307 P.3d 1042
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Trevor Yazzie was charged with aggravated DUI (felony) and driving on a suspended license (misdemeanor); he was tried in absentia.
- Jury acquitted him of aggravated DUI (count 1) and convicted him of driving on a suspended license (count 2).
- The trial court’s instruction for count 1 included a mens rea element (knew or should have known his license was suspended); the instruction for count 2 omitted any mens rea.
- Defense objected at trial, requesting the same mens rea language for count 2; the court nonetheless gave the State’s no-mens-rea instruction for count 2.
- On appeal, the sole issue was whether A.R.S. § 28-3473 requires proof that the defendant knew or should have known his license was suspended; the court concluded the State must prove that mental element and vacated the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driving on a suspended license under A.R.S. § 28-3473 requires proof the defendant knew or should have known of the suspension | The State implied the statute is strict liability for the misdemeanor and omitted mens rea from instruction; argued omission was inadvertent and harmless | Yazzie argued the State must prove knowledge or constructive knowledge (knew or should have known) and objected to the no-mens-rea instruction | Court held the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or should have known of the suspension; conviction vacated and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 487 (discusses necessity of mens rea for offenses based on driving without a license; courts should require knowledge of suspension)
- State v. Jennings, 150 Ariz. 90 (strict liability offenses are the exception; legislative intent required to eliminate mens rea)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (criminal convictions must rest on jury findings of every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (harmless-error standard: State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not affect verdict)
- State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 (to find harmless error for erroneous instruction, record must establish every element beyond a reasonable doubt)