Home/Court of Appeals of Arizona/State v. Ovens

State v. Ovens

422 P.2d 719, 4 Ariz. App. 591, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 342
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
DecidedJanuary 27, 1967
Docket1 CA-CR 88
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 422 P.2d 719 (State v. Ovens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Ovens, 422 P.2d 719, 4 Ariz. App. 591, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 342 (Ark. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

STEVENS, Judge.

This Court is concerned with the question: What constitutes a de facto deputy sheriff ?

A complaint was filed before a Justice of the Peace charging the three appellees with the offense of obstructing justice, a felony in violation of A.R.S. Section 13-541. A preliminary hearing was duly conducted, the defendants were bound over and an information charging the offense was filed in the Superior Court. The reporter’s transcript of the preliminary hearing was filed in the Superior Court and treated as a bill of particulars pursuant to Rule 169, subsec. A, par. (e) of the Rules of Criminal Proce *592 dure, 17 A.R.S. The defendants filed their motion to quash the information, the motion was granted and the State has appealed pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-1712.

This case turns upon the question of whether Glenn W. Martin and Allen G. Roth were de facto deputy sheriffs on 20 September 1965, the date of the alleged offense. The State does not urge that these men were de jure deputy sheriffs. The County Attorney appointed Martin as an “Accountant Investigator” and Roth as a “Criminal Investigator”. The official minutes of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County reflect the Board’s approval of Martin’s appointment on 16 February 1965 and of Roth’s appointment on 8 March 1965. These positions are not statutory. The Vice-Chairman of the Board understood that these men would have issued to them deputy sheriff cards by the Sheriff of Maricopa County and that they would also serve warrants. The Vice-Chairman and the County Attorney theretofore had informally discussed the County Attorney’s need for investigators who could serve warrants of arrest. The evidence does not disclose that the other members of the Board participated in any such discussion or that they were cognizant of the fact that Martin and Roth would be issued deputy sheriff cards and would serve warrants.

Following their appointments, both men were carried on the payroll of the County Attorney. Neither man received any compensation from the funds budgeted for the use of the Sheriff of Maricopa County. On 3 March 1965, the Chief Deputy Sheriff administered a verbal oath to Martin and Roth who were then issued deputy sheriff cards signed by the Sheriff. The cards were the standard form of card issued to regular deputy sheriffs except that they carried the words “County Attorney Investigator”. Both cards were identical except as to the name, signature and picture of the person to whom the card was issued. Martin’s deputy sheriff card and “professional card” are reproduced in this opinion. Roth’s cards were similar. Both *593 deputy sheriff cards were outstanding and were neither revoked nor recalled on 20 September 1965.

*592

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stevenson v. State
733 So. 2d 177 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1998)
Arthur L. Stevenson v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1997
Amerson v. State
648 So. 2d 58 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1994)
Walker v. Walthall
588 P.2d 863 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1978)
State v. White
574 P.2d 840 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1977)
State v. Fimbres
510 P.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 P.2d 719, 4 Ariz. App. 591, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ovens-arizctapp-1967.