C). Jurisdictional Defects in the Complaint/Ticket Mandate Dismissal for Failure to State an Offense A complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting a public offense, that is either signed by a prosecutor, or made upon oath before a magistrate, or made in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-3903. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 2.3(a). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3903(D), “[i]n any case in which a person is arrested for a misdemeanor offense or a petty offense, the arresting officer may prepare in quadruplicate a written notice to appear and complaint, containing the name and address of the person, the offense charged, and the time and place where and when the person shall appear in court.” Subsection (E) of the statute further states that “[t]he Arizona traffic ticket and complaint may be utilized not only for the purposes provided by Arizona Supreme Court rule, but to satisfy the requirements of this section.” A.R.S. § 13-3903(E). The general rule is that error in the citation of a statute does not invalidate a charging document unless the error misleads the defendant to his prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 61 S.Ct. 463, 85 L.Ed. 788 (1941); United States v. Kennington, 650 F.2d 544 (5th Cir.1981); Hammock v. State, 146 Ga.Ap. 339, 246 S.E.2d 392 (1978); People v. Boyd, 87 Ill.App.3d 978, 42 Ill.Dec. 777, 409 N.E.2d 392 (1980); People v. Posey, 83 Ill.App.3d 885, 39 Ill.Dec. 98, 404 N.E.2d 482 (1980); State v. Kirkland, 184 Mont. 229, 602 P.2d 586 (1979); 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 124 (2nd ed. 1982); but see, People v. Law, 106 Misc.2d 351, 431 N.Y.S.2d 648 (1980). In fact, even when indictments cite only an ineffective, repealed statute and not a currently effective law, courts refuse to reverse the conviction absent prejudice to the defendant. Sanders v. State, 386 So.2d 256 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); State v. Jackson, 594 S.W.2d 623 (Mo.1980); State v. Harris, 670 S.W.2d 73 (Mo.App.1984); Commonwealth v. Shirey, 333 Pa.Super. 85, 481 A.2d 1314 (1984). However, this rule is inapposite where, as here, the government failed to cite the subsection of a large statute of which only one portion was allegedly violated. Even if it was applicable, Defendant is clearly prejudiced by the failure of the State to cite the subsection of the statutes as neither he nor the Court has proper notice of what exactly is being litigated in this action. In State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 679, 782 P.2d 552 (1989), the Washing State Supreme Court considered the sufficiency of the contents of documents charging misdemeanor offenses in courts of limited jurisdiction. The court stated that [i]n holding that a charging document which omits a statutory element of the crime charged violates a defendants constitutional rights, the court in [State v.] Holt[, 104 Wn.2d 315, 704 P.2d 1189 (1985)] did not distinguish between misdemeanors and felonies, nor between complaints and citations. In applying the Holt rule, there is no logical reason to distinguish between complaints and citations or felonies and misdemeanors. If a misdemeanor citation or complaint omits a statutory element of the charged offense, the document is constitutionally defective for failure to state an offense and is subject to dismissal. State v. Leach, supra at 687. The court added that the charging document need not state the statutory elements of the offense in the precise language of the statute, but may instead use words conveying the same meaning and import as the statutory language. State v. Leach, supra at 689 (quoting State v. Nieblas-Duarte, 55 Wn. App. 376, 380, 777 P.2d 583, review denied, 113 Wn.2d 1030 (1989)). The complaint against Defendant is constitutionally defective because it does not include the offense charged, in the language of the statute, together with a statement as to the time, place, person, and property involved to enable Defendant to understand the character of the offense charged as required by A.R.S. § 13-3903 and the Federal Constitution. The complaint merely stated HARASSMENT/13-2921A—DISORDERLY CONDUCT/13-2904 and incorporated an attached police report note describing the general facts of the August 29th, 2014 offense. However, the complaint did not specify whether a misdemeanor or a felony was charged. Specifically, it did not include exact citation to the portion of the statutes the State alleges Defendant violated. The Arizona statues pertaining to harassment and disorderly conduct are complicated and large, and Defendant needed more information. See generally, A.R.S. §§ 13-2921A; 13-2904. In a criminal prosecution Defendant has the basic right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him.... Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, Section 24; and he is entitled to be formally notified in plain, understandable language of the acts or conduct charged to have been criminal so that he may prepare his defense and be protected from double jeopardy. State v. Cutshaw, 7 Ariz. App. 210, 437 P.2d 962 (1968). This omission violated A.R.S. § 13-3903 and Defendant’s due process right to be properly informed of the charge against him as required by the state and federal constitutions. Ariz. Const. art. 2, §§ 24; U.S. Const. amends. 5, 6, 14.
Posted on: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:13:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015