State v. Alvarado

Court of Appeals of Arizona
219 Ariz. 540, 200 P.3d 1037 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The 'voluntary act' required for criminal liability for promoting prison contraband refers to the defendant's conscious act of possessing and carrying the contraband, not the act of voluntarily entering the correctional facility. An arrestee who is involuntarily brought to jail can still be found guilty of the offense if they knowingly fail to relinquish contraband concealed on their person.

Facts:

A police officer, responding to a call, patted down the defendant and found a marijuana pipe.
The defendant admitted the pipe was his and then volunteered that he had marijuana in another pocket, which the officer retrieved.
The defendant was arrested and transported to the Yavapai County Jail.
Before entering the jail, the arresting officer twice asked the defendant if he had any more drugs or weapons and warned him of additional charges; the defendant replied, 'No,' both times.
Inside the jail during the booking process, a detention officer also asked if the defendant had any contraband, and the defendant murmured 'no.'
The detention officer searched the defendant and discovered a container holding 790 milligrams of marijuana in his pocket.
Upon the discovery of the additional marijuana, the defendant stated, 'Oh, man, I worked hard for that chronic.'

Procedural Posture:

The State charged the defendant with promoting prison contraband, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia in an Arizona trial court.
A jury found the defendant guilty on all counts.
Following the verdict, the defendant filed a renewed motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of promoting prison contraband.
The trial court judge granted the defendant's motion, overturning the jury's guilty verdict for that specific charge.
The State (as appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of the judgment of acquittal to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a person commit the offense of promoting prison contraband by knowingly taking contraband into a correctional facility, even if their entry into the facility was involuntary because they were under arrest?

Opinions:

Majority - Hall, Judge

No, the offense of promoting prison contraband does not require the State to prove that a defendant voluntarily entered the correctional facility. The statutory requirement of a 'voluntary act' is satisfied by the conscious bodily movement of possessing and carrying the contraband into the facility. The court reasoned that the 'voluntary act' requirement, or actus reus, is distinct from the culpable mental state, or mens rea. Citing State v. Lara, the court defined a voluntary act as 'a determined conscious bodily movement, in contrast to a knee-jerk reflex.' The defendant's act of keeping the marijuana on his person was a conscious bodily movement. The separate mens rea requirement of 'knowingly' was satisfied by evidence that the defendant was aware he possessed the marijuana, as confirmed by his statement after its discovery. The court explicitly rejected the reasoning of State v. Tippetts, which held that involuntary entry negated culpability, arguing that such an interpretation would lead to the absurd result of the statute only applying to non-inmates. Furthermore, the officers provided the defendant with multiple opportunities to surrender the contraband, meaning his failure to do so was a conscious choice and the 'result of effort and determination.'

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the legal principle in Arizona that the 'voluntary act' element of a crime focuses on the specific conduct prohibited, not the defendant's overall circumstances. It establishes a clear precedent that arrestees cannot use the involuntary nature of their entry into jail as a defense against charges of promoting prison contraband. This aligns Arizona with the majority of jurisdictions on this issue, prioritizing the security and integrity of correctional facilities over a defendant's argument that they were compelled to be there. The ruling effectively closes a potential loophole and ensures that individuals are held responsible for the conscious choice to remain in possession of contraband during the booking process.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Alvarado (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"