State v. Olquin

In State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250, 165 P.3d 228 (App. 2007), the Court decided aggravated driving while a person under fifteen years of age is in the vehicle is a victimless crime. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250,22-24, 165 P.3d at 232-33. Therefore, it did not need to consider whether the name of the victim would be a necessary part of an element of an offense requiring a victim. The statement on which Villegas-Rojas relies, that "the identity of the victim therefore is an element of the offense," was dicta. Id.21. And State v. Tschilar, 200 Ariz. 427,34, 27 P.3d 331, 339 (App. 2001), on which Olquin relies for the general proposition that a victim is an element of a crime against another person, does not state that the name of the victim is a necessary element. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250,21, 165 P.3d at 232. Furthermore, the court in Olquin did not consider whether a factual identification of the victim was sufficient in the absence of a name. In Olquin, the defendant was convicted of aggravated DUI for driving with an elevated BAC while his three children were in the vehicle. Id.3, 6, 8, 165 P.3d at 229-30. The only evidence of the childrens' ages was testimony from law enforcement officers. Id.18. Although the specific challenge was to the sufficiency of the state's evidence on the victim's identities, as opposed to their ages, we were nevertheless required to assess the adequacy of the state's evidence on this point. The Court concluded the officers' testimony was "more than sufficient to permit the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed DUI while a person under the age of fifteen was in the vehicle." Id.28.