State v. Lara - 183 Ariz. 233, 902 P.2d 1337 (1995)

Rule:

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-105(34) defines "voluntary act" as a bodily movement performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination. 

Facts:

After having been stalked and assaulted by appellant Miguel Angel Lara, Al Bartlett called the police and complained that appellant would not leave his house. The police officer answered the call and was told that appellant was inside. The police officer walked in and saw appellant lying down on a couch. Appellant got up and pointed a knife at him. The officer backed off and called for help. He retreated down a corridor, drew his pistol and told appellant to stop or he would shoot. Instead, appellant continued to walk towards in, called him names and slashed at him with the knife. Appellant backed the police officer out of the house, swung the knife at him and said he was going to kill him, and when the officer backed into a fence, appellant raised his knife and lunged at him. The latter then shot appellant. Appellant was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault. A defense psychologist testified that appellant was suffering from some organic brain impairment and personality disorder. Based on this sort of testimony, appellant asked for a voluntary act instruction under A.R.S. § 13-201 and § 13-105(34). The trial court rejected the instruction. Appellant also asked for a lesser included offense instruction for disorderly conduct but was also rejected. The jury found appellant guilty of aggravated assault but acquitted him of attempted first degree murder. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and concluded that defendant was entitled to a voluntary act instruction and a lesser included offense instruction on disorderly conduct. The state appealed. 

Issue:

Did the appellate court err in reversing appellant’s conviction of aggravated assault?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court vacated the parts of the opinion of the appellate court addressing the voluntary act and lesser included offense instructions, and the court affirmed the trial court's conviction of defendant for aggravated assault. The court held that defendant's expert testimony fell far short of showing an involuntary act pursuant to §§ 13-201, 13-105(34). Additionally, there was no evidence to support a lesser offense of disorderly conduct. The court ruled that defendant was not unconscious when he attempted to kill the policeman. Thus, defendant's attack was relentless and deadly- his act when he slashed at the policeman with a knife and told him he was going to kill him where the policeman had to shoot defendant to stop him.