Derendal v. Griffith
In Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416, 419, P 9, 104 P.3d 147, 150 (2005) the Arizona Supreme Court explained that Article 2, Section 23, "preserves the right to jury trial as it existed at the time Arizona adopted its constitution."
The court modified the standard for determining whether a particular misdemeanor qualifies for a jury trial and developed a two-step inquiry. Id. at 425, PP 36-37, 104 P.3d at 156.
First, Article 2, Section 23, requires the offense be tried to a jury if it has a common law antecedent that guaranteed the right to trial by jury at the time of Arizona statehood. Id. at P 36.
The common law offense and the offense charged must share "substantially similar elements." Id.
Second, in the event there is no common law antecedent, the court must determine whether the offense is "serious" within the meaning of Article 2, Section 24, of the Arizona Constitution. Id. at P 37.
In that regard, the court will presume the offense is petty if punishable by no more than six months' incarceration, but the defendant may rebut the presumption with proof that the offense carries "additional severe, direct, uniformly applied, statutory consequences that reflect the legislature's judgment that the offense is serious." Id.
The collateral consequences must "approximate in severity the loss of liberty that a prison term entails." Id. at 423, P 24, 104 P.3d at 154.