No, it's not being punished twice for the same crime. The court explained that armed robbery and aggravated assault are two separate offenses, even if they happen at the same time. To be guilty of armed robbery, you must actually steal something. To be guilty of aggravated assault, you must make someone afraid of being immediately hurt. Since robbery requires stealing (which assault doesn't) and assault requires causing fear (which robbery technically doesn't), they are different crimes under the law.

No, it's not against the law to find someone guilty of both stealing with a weapon and attacking with a weapon for the same incident. Here's why:

First, we look at what the law says you need to prove for each crime, not what actually happened. To prove stealing with a weapon, you need to show someone took something that wasn't theirs while using a weapon. To prove attacking with a weapon, you need to show someone tried to scare or hurt another person with a weapon. These are different enough that we can say they're not the same crime.

Also, Price said he should have had 12 people on his jury instead of 8. But that's only needed if he could have gone to prison for 30 years or more. We decided that the most time he could have gotten was 21 years, so 8 people on the jury was okay.

Lastly, Price wanted the jury to think about finding him guilty of less serious crimes instead. But there wasn't any reason for them to do that. The person who was robbed said Price had a gun, and no one argued that this wasn't true.

No, convicting a defendant for both armed robbery and aggravated assault does not violate double jeopardy. Under the Blockburger test, two offenses are not the same if each requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. Here, armed robbery requires the taking of property, which aggravated assault does not. Conversely, aggravated assault requires intentionally placing the victim in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury, an element not required for armed robbery. Because each offense contains a unique element, they are separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes, and convictions for both are constitutionally permissible.

No. I find that convictions for both armed robbery and aggravated assault do not violate double jeopardy principles. We analyze the elements of the offenses, not the facts of the case, to determine if they are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. Armed robbery can be committed without injuring or touching the victim, so aggravated assault has elements that armed robbery does not. Armed robbery does not require either intending to place or actually placing the victim in fear, whereas aggravated assault requires both an intent to place the victim in 'reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury' and that such apprehension actually results. Finally, armed robbery requires proof of elements that aggravated assault does not, including the taking of property. Because each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not, armed robbery and aggravated assault are not the 'same offense' for double jeopardy purposes. Therefore, convictions for both offenses were constitutionally permissible.

Additionally, I find that Price was not entitled to a twelve-person jury because the maximum sentence he faced was 21 years, not 30 years or more. Although double jeopardy principles would not have prevented consecutive sentences, A.R.S. § 13-116 prohibits consecutive sentences for multiple offenses that constitute a single act. Applying the Gordon test, we conclude Price's conduct was a single act under § 13-116, making consecutive sentences impermissible.

Lastly, I find that the trial court did not err in refusing to give jury instructions on robbery and assault as lesser included offenses. There was no evidence from which a rational jury could find that Price was guilty of only the lesser offenses but not the greater offenses. The victim testified that Price displayed and drew a gun during the incident, and nothing in the record suggests that use of the gun was disputed at trial.

State v. Price

Premium Feature

Rule of Law:

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

Premium Content

Issue:

Opinions:

Majority - Howard, Presiding Judge

Analysis: