Cited by

overruled in part by Derendal, , (eliminating the “moral quality” prong of the Rothweiler test).

The legislature appeared to be responding to the holding of Rothweiler v. Superior Court (City of Tucson), , , that DUI defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial.

at 327 n. 1, V 10, , 987 P.2d at 813 n. 1 ( , ).

¶¶ 36-37 , ( , ); ¶¶ 6-7

(‘The right to a jury trial should be jealously guarded and preserved by the courts, whether granted by the constitution or statutes.’).” John C., 208 Ariz. at 46 -47 ¶ 11, 90 P.3d at 783-84 .

Stoudamire is correct that the supreme court held in Dolny: “[U]nder Rothweiler [v. Superior Court, 100 Ariz. 37, ] a misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana is sufficiently serious to warrant a jury trial, primarily because of the potentially grave consequences, together with the potential direct punishment, resulting from a conviction.” 161 Ariz. at 301, 778 P.2d at 1197.

does not apply to petty offenses.” , (overruled in part by Derendal, , ).

¶3 Before the date scheduled for Manic’s trial, P.3d 147 (2005), P.2d 479 (1966), that misdemeanor DUI defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial.

In Derendal , the court held that an act of moral turpitude is no longer enough to give a defendant charged with a misdemeanor the right to a jury trial in Arizona, overruling a portion of the court’s

Ct., , adopted “a three-prong test to decide whether, with regard to a particular criminal offense, the federal or Arizona Constitution guarantee[d] the right to a jury trial.” Derendal, 209 Ariz. at 419, ¶ 5 , 104 P.3d at 149 .

See, ( P.2d 479 (1966), regarding “use of the ‘moral quality’ prong of [test] to determine whether one charged with a misdemeanor criminal offense is entitled to trial by jury”); Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, (abolishing common law rule of nonliability for tavern owners for accidents caused

and Rothweiler v. Superior Court (City of Tucson), , ).

Under Derendal, a finding that an act is of moral turpitude, , , is no longer enough to afford a jury trial for an offense.

KULA, City of Phoenix Public Defender Phoenix Contract Office Attorneys for Amicus Curiae City of Phoenix Public Defender ________________________________________________________________ M c G R E G O R, Vice Chief Justice 2 ¶1 P.2d 479 (1966), to determine when the Arizona Constitution mandates that a criminal offense be eligible for trial by jury.

(“The right to a jury trial should be jealously guarded and preserved by the courts, whether granted by the constitution or statutes.”).

Rather, , the Arizona Supreme Court has developed a test to determine whether a crime is serious for purposes of jury eligibility.

ANALYSIS ¶ 4 Raye contends that underage drinking and driving is a jury eligible offense because it is a “no tolerance DUI statute” for persons under the age of twenty-one and as such carries the same moral quality as driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (“DUI”)

For instance, we have held that the crimes of driving under the influence, Rothweiler v..Superi- or Court, , and possession of marijuana, State ex rel.

(discussing the extent of the common law right to jury trial in 1910).

Benitez, 198 Ariz. at 92-93, ¶ 4 , 7 P.3d at 101-02

(listing three factors used to determine a crime’s severity: (1) the harshness of the penalty, (2) the "moral turpitude” of the act, and (3) how the crime was traditionally tried under common law).