In re Rosario L
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) IN RE ROSARIO L. ) ) ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 04/26/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-JV 11-0244 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G), Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct.; Rule 28, ARCAP) Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County Cause No. S0300JV201100197 The Honorable Ted Stuart Reed, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED David Rozema, Coconino County Attorney by Heather Mosher, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Flagstaff Gary Pearlmutter, Coconino County Legal Defender Attorneys for Appellant Flagstaff P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Rosario L. was adjudicated delinquent of a misdemeanor assault and subsequently placed on probation. adjudication. For the following adjudication and resulting disposition. reasons, He challenges the we affirm the FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 ¶2 While at school on March 28, 2011, Rosario and his friend each touched the buttocks of the victim with his open hand. During the subsequent investigation, Rosario admitted his action. ¶3 with The State charged him with a misdemeanor assault the intent to injure, insult or provoke pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-1203(A)(3) (West 2012). 2 Prior to the adjudication, the State amended the charge and added sections 13-301 to -303 (West 2012) to allege that Rosario was an accomplice. ¶4 At the close of the State s case, Rosario moved for a directed verdict. first witness. After the motion was denied, he called his The next day, the court sua sponte reconsidered the issue of the motion for directed verdict as to part or at least one theory upon which the State is proceeding. The court then found that the State had failed to present substantial evidence to support an adjudication of delinquency based upon a 1 We review the facts in a light most favorable to sustaining the trial court s determination. State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 287, ¶ 6, 69 P.3d 1006, 1008 (App. 2003). 2 We cite the current version of the applicable statute if no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 2 theory of accomplice liability . . . [a]nd, therefore, the matter will proceed under the theory of direct liability. 3 ¶5 After the court heard all of the evidence, Rosario was adjudicated delinquent. Following his probation disposition, he filed this appeal. DISCUSSION ¶6 Rosario misdemeanor argues assault after that the his court adjudication directed the verdict a on on accomplice liability theory violates the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See State v. Millanes, 180 Ariz. 418, 420, 885 P.2d 106, 108 (App. 1994). We disagree. ¶7 The principal. State originally charged the youngster as a The charge was later amended to also allege that he was an accomplice. As a result, the State had two theories it wanted to present at the adjudication to attempt to demonstrate that Rosario was delinquent: that he was responsible for his actions either as a principal, or as an accomplice pursuant to sections 13-301 to -303. that court he had admitted appropriately to After the State presented evidence the directed unwanted a 3 touching, verdict on the the juvenile theory of After granting the motion for directed verdict on the theory of accomplice liability, the court determined that Rosario s motion for mistrial based on duplicitous charges was moot. 3 accomplice liability and the adjudication continued. Rosario testified and was adjudicated delinquent. ¶8 He double argues jeopardy Millanes, that Millanes precluded however, is his requires us adjudication inapposite. There, to as find a the that principal. trial court erroneously granted a directed verdict on the theft charge after striking testimony about the value of Millanes, 180 Ariz. at 419, 885 P.2d at 107. subsequently [o]nce a reversed defendant itself, is id., acquitted of this a the stolen truck. Although the court court stated particular crime, that the state is precluded from further prosecutions by the prohibition against double jeopardy. ¶9 Id. at 423, 885 P.2d at 111. Here, the court only directed a verdict on the theory of accomplice liability, it did not direct a verdict on the misdemeanor crime of assault. The State was, as a result, only precluded from attempting to prove that Rosario was responsible as an accomplice. And, as the court noted, it was not precluded from attempting to prove that he was responsible as a direct principal. Accordingly, the double jeopardy doctrine did not preclude the court from allowing the adjudication to continue as to Rosario s direct responsibility delinquent. 4 or from finding him CONCLUSION ¶10 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the adjudication and disposition. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Judge /s/ ________________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
