jury eligibility standard in Arizona

2006Id. ¶ 9 By removing the moral quality prong of the Rothweiler test, Derendal necessarily overruled our holding in Mungarro to the extent that it is inconsistent with Derendal 5 ¶ 10 Abuhl acknowledges that the moral quality test has been removed from the jury eligibility analysis, and concedes that the potential penalty for false reporting is not severe.

2005However, in light of the ruling in Myers v. Reeb, 190 Ariz. 341 , 947 P.2d 915 (App.1997), this court feels compelled to grant jury trials in DUI eases until instructed not to do so by an appellate court. ¶ 4 The State argues that under Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416 , 104 P.3d 147 (2005), defendants charged with misdemeanor offenses, including misdemeanor DUI offenses, are no longer jury trial eligible.

2018Consequently, because misdemeanor assault is a petty offense for which no jury right attaches, Spence is not entitled to a jury trial on the basis that he faces a potential aggregate sentence of eighteen months. ¶ 9 Spence, however, relies on Codispoti v. Pennsylvania , 418 U.S. 506 , 94 S.Ct. 2687 , 41 L.Ed.2d 912 (1974), for the proposition that "when a person is charged with several offenses arising from a single transaction, charged before a single judge, and tried in a single proceeding, and the sentences may be applied consecutively, the jury eligibility analysis must consider the charge

2018Consequently, because misdemeanor assault is a petty offense for which no jury right attaches, Spence is not entitled to a jury trial on the basis that he faces a potential aggregate sentence of eighteen months. ¶ 9 Spence, however, relies on Codispoti v. Pennsylvania , 418 U.S. 506 , 94 S.Ct. 2687 , 41 L.Ed.2d 912 (1974), for the proposition that "when a person is charged with several offenses arising from a single transaction, charged before a single judge, and tried in a single proceeding, and the sentences may be applied consecutively, the jury eligibility analysis must consider the charge

2005However, in light of the ruling in Myers v. Reeb, 190 Ariz. 341 , 947 P.2d 915 (App.1997), this court feels compelled to grant jury trials in DUI eases until instructed not to do so by an appellate court. ¶ 4 The State argues that under Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416 , 104 P.3d 147 (2005), defendants charged with misdemeanor offenses, including misdemeanor DUI offenses, are no longer jury trial eligible.

2005However, in light of the ruling in Myers v. Reeb, 190 Ariz. 341 , 947 P.2d 915 (App.1997), this court feels compelled to grant jury trials in DUI eases until instructed not to do so by an appellate court. ¶ 4 The State argues that under Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416 , 104 P.3d 147 (2005), defendants charged with misdemeanor offenses, including misdemeanor DUI offenses, are no longer jury trial eligible.

2000In contrast, we explained recently in Strohson that Arizona operates with a broader jury eligibility standard, providing its citizens with greater access to jury trials than the federal constitution mandates. 190 Ariz. at 121-22 , 945 P.2d at 1252-53 .

2000In contrast, we explained recently in Strohson that Arizona operates with a broader jury eligibility standard, providing its citizens with greater access to jury trials than the federal constitution mandates. 190 Ariz. at 121-22 , 945 P.2d at 1252-53 .