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. Rich
Citations: 27 Ariz. App. 207; 553 P.2d 240; 1976 Ariz. App. LEXIS 577Docket: No. 1 CA-CR 1532
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; July 29, 1976; Arizona; State Appellate Court
The appeal centers on whether a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be tried at his residence. James David Rich was arrested for speeding in Mayer, Arizona, and issued a citation to appear in the Mayer Justice Court. He filed a motion to change venue to Tempe, his residence, claiming bias from the Justice of the Peace. The trial court, citing A.R.S. 22-303(A)(1), transferred the case to the Prescott precinct of Yavapai County due to the alleged bias. Rich later sought another venue change to Maricopa County but did not assert he could not receive a fair trial in Prescott, relying instead on civil venue statutes. His requests were denied, and after being found guilty in Prescott, he appealed to the Yavapai County Superior Court, where he again faced conviction. Rich's argument hinges on the assertion that he has a constitutional right to trial at his residence and that the travel costs and time incurred represent a "significant property interest" under the Fourteenth Amendment. He claims this right is denied without due process since state statutes do not guarantee a venue change to his residence. However, the court questions the validity of equating travel expenses with a constitutionally protected property interest. The defendant failed to cite any legal authority supporting their position, and independent research corroborated this absence. The court notes that the Fourteenth Amendment ensures due process, while the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a public trial by an impartial jury in the location of the alleged crime. Therefore, jurisdiction for a criminal offense lies in the area where the crime occurred, as emphasized in United States v. Anderson. The court deduces that "due process" pertains to the fairness of the trial at that location, not the costs borne by the defendant related to jurisdiction. Arizona statutes A.R.S. 22-303(A)(1) and A.R.S. 22-303(A)(2) address changes of venue for bias and prejudice, aligning with the constitutional requirement for a fair trial. The court concludes that under both the United States and Arizona Constitutions, criminal jurisdiction is tied to the crime's location, and defendants lack a constitutional right to be tried elsewhere unless they can demonstrate that a fair trial is unfeasible in that locale. Moreover, expenses incurred by defendants to satisfy jurisdiction requirements do not constitute a property right under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The court affirms the trial court's judgment and sentence, with judges Schroeder and Wren concurring. The Arizona Constitution also supports the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury in the county where the offense occurred. While expenses may influence the convenience of venue under federal statutes, Arizona lacks a specific convenience venue statute.