Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

149 Ariz. 478

720 P.2d 79

Docket Nos. CR-86-0039-PR, 1 CA-CR 8506.

State v. Angle

STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Harold Arthur ANGLE, Appellant.

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1986.

Arizona Supreme Court · decided 1986-05-19

Relies on State v. Angle

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-05-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2016

2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

1401986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*479 Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., William J. Schafer, III, Chief Counsel, Crim. Div., Barbara M. Jarrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

¶2Chester R. Lockwood, Jr., Prescott, for appellant.

¶3GORDON, Vice Chief Justice.

¶4The single issue for review in this case is whether disorderly conduct, A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(6) constitutes a lesser included offense of aggravated assault, A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6 § 5(3) and Ariz.R. Crim.P. 31.19.

¶5Defendant, Harold Arthur Angle, was charged with three counts of aggravated assault while armed with a deadly weapon in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(2), 13-1204(A)(2). The trial court gave jury instructions on aggravated assault and attempted aggravated assault. However, the trial court refused defendant's requested instruction on disorderly conduct by reckless display of a firearm in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(6). The jury convicted defendant of three counts of attempted aggravated assault and he was sentenced to concurrent presumptive terms of six years imprisonment.

¶6Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence and the court of appeals affirmed. State v. Angle,149 Ariz. 499, 720 P.2d 100 (1985). We adopt the dissenting opinion of Judge Kleinschmidt and vacate the majority opinion as to this issue. We agree with the result of the majority as to all other issues.

¶7Remanded for new trial.

¶8CAMERON and FELDMAN, JJ., concur.

¶9HOLOHAN, Chief Justice, dissenting.

¶10Since the ruling of the trial court and the opinion of the majority of the Court of Appeals appears to me to be correct, I would affirm the judgment of the superior *480 court. Therefore, I dissent from the position of the majority.

¶11HAYS, Justice.

¶12I concur in Chief Justice Holohan's dissent.

/149/ariz/478 · .json · Public domain