In Re James P.
153 P.3d 1049, 498 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 23, 214 Ariz. 420 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A crime is a lesser-included offense of another if it always constitutes a part of the greater offense or if the charging document describes it as such. For one offense to be included within another, the greater must have all the elements of the lesser plus at least one additional element.
Facts:
- James P., a juvenile, was charged with child molestation and sexual conduct with minors involving two victims, C.R. and C.T.
- The incidents occurred when James was between ten and eleven years old, and the victims were nine and seven years old, respectively.
- For C.R., the juvenile court initially dismissed the child molestation charges due to lack of sexual motivation but adjudicated delinquency for assault.
- For C.T., the court found James delinquent of child molestation but not guilty of sexual conduct with a minor.
- C.R. testified that James repeatedly tried to touch his private parts and forced C.R. to touch James' private parts, causing pain.
- C.T. testified that James put his penis in C.T.'s mouth and between his bottom cheeks on multiple occasions.
- The juvenile court found C.T.'s testimony credible despite some inconsistencies with prior testimony.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the juvenile court err in adjudicating the juvenile delinquent for assault as a lesser-included offense of child molestation, and was there sufficient evidence to support the child molestation adjudication?
Opinions:
Majority - Orozco (J.)
No, the juvenile court erred in adjudicating the juvenile delinquent for assault as a lesser-included offense of child molestation because the elements of assault under A.R.S. § 13-1203.A.1 do not necessarily constitute a part of child molestation under A.R.S. § 13-1410. Specifically, assault requires causing physical injury, which is not a required element of child molestation. The court explained that for one offense to be included within another, 'the greater must have all the elements of the lesser plus at least one additional element.' In this case, assault contains an element (causing physical injury) that child molestation does not contain. Therefore, we vacate the adjudication for assault. However, we affirm the adjudication for child molestation against C.T. The juvenile court is in the best position to assess witness credibility, and our role is to determine if the evidence adduced at the hearing is sufficient to support the court's adjudication. C.T.'s testimony supports the juvenile court's order, and although Juvenile's counsel impeached C.T. with prior inconsistent testimony, it is the role of the fact finder to determine credibility. The judge made a specific finding on the record that he found C.T.'s testimony credible, and we are not in a position to second-guess that finding.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the criteria for determining lesser-included offenses in the context of juvenile delinquency. It emphasizes the necessity of matching every element of the lesser offense to the greater offense, impacting future cases involving statutory interpretation and charges of similar nature. The decision also highlights the importance of witness credibility in juvenile proceedings and the appellate court's deference to the trial court's credibility determinations. This ruling may influence how prosecutors charge and how courts adjudicate similar cases involving multiple offenses against juveniles.
