State v. Alvarado - 219 Ariz. 540, 200 P.3d 1037 (Ct. App. 2008)

Rule:

The requirement that an act be "voluntary" is simply a codification of the common law requirement of actus reus, a requirement grounded in the principle that a person cannot be prosecuted for his thoughts alone, and that the voluntary act requirement does not modify the mens rea required for the offense. The statutory requirement under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-105 (2001) that the conduct include "a bodily movement performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination" simply means that the defendant engage in a determined conscious bodily movement, in contrast to a knee-jerk reflex driven by the autonomic nervous system. 

Facts:

The offense of promoting prison contraband occurs when a person "knowingly takes contraband into a correctional facility or the grounds of such facility." Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 13-2505 (2001). The trial court granted defendant's post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of promoting prison contraband, reasoning that defendant did not "voluntarily" take marijuana into the jail following his arrest because it was concealed on his person when he was arrested. The State appealed the trial court's ruling. 

Issue:

Did the evidence support the jury's determination that defendant committed the offense of promoting prison contraband even though he did not "voluntarily" choose to enter the correctional facility?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the evidence supported the jury's determination that defendant committed the offense of promoting prison contraband even though he did not "voluntarily" choose to enter the correctional facility. The evidence in the case sufficiently demonstrated that defendant consciously, with effort and determination, engaged in the prohibited conduct of carrying marijuana into the county jail and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2505 (2001) did not require that a person voluntarily enter the jail before he could be charged with violating the statute. The appellate court therefore reversed the judgment of acquittal, directed the superior court to reinstate the jury's verdict, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.