Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Powers
Citations: 26 P.3d 1134; 200 Ariz. 363; 352 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 10; 2001 Ariz. LEXIS 111Docket: CR-01-0089-PR
Court: Arizona Supreme Court; July 12, 2001; Arizona; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Arizona addressed whether the number of accident scenes under A.R.S. 28-661 correlates with the number of victims involved. In the case involving Dustin Ryan Powers, he struck and killed a jogger, Martha Grinder, while injuring her infant daughter, Rollie, and failed to stop. Powers was charged with two counts of violating A.R.S. 28-661, which criminalizes leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death or serious injury. He pled guilty to one count but contested the second as multiplicitous, citing potential violations of due process and double jeopardy. The trial court denied his motion, and after a bench trial, he was found guilty on both counts, receiving two concurrent 3.5-year sentences. Powers appealed, and the court of appeals vacated the second conviction, referencing the case of State v. Tinajero, which provided a different interpretation of the statute. The court noted conflicting analyses from previous cases: State v. Hamblin upheld multiple convictions for multiple victims, while Tinajero suggested a single accident scene for multiple victims in one vehicle. The appellate court ultimately concluded that the language of A.R.S. 28-661 does not link the number of accident scenes to the number of victims, focusing instead on the obligation of the driver to remain at the accident scene. The court affirmed that the plain language of the statute emphasizes the scene of the accident rather than the number of victims, thereby supporting the appellate court's decision. A.R.S. 28-661 aims to prevent drivers from avoiding liability by fleeing the scene of an accident before their identity is established, focusing on the scene rather than the number of victims. While the number of victims is relevant for other charges (such as assault or manslaughter), the statute does not define accident scenes by victim count. The court affirms the appellate court's opinion and disapproves of conflicting views presented by Hamblin and Tinajero. Under A.R.S. 28-661(A), drivers must stop at the accident scene, and under A.R.S. 28-663, they must provide their identity and assistance to injured persons, with noncompliance resulting in a class 3 misdemeanor.