State v. Ramos

I must dissent from the majority opinion which, I believe, too readily pronounces the unconstitutionality of the amended statute, A.R.S. § 13-503. Reading § 13-1802 and § 13-503 together, it is apparent that the legislature has merely redefined the offense of theft where voluntary intoxication is involved. This is a legislative prerogative, so long as the redefinition is not so bizarre or unfair as to shock the conscience.

The effect of intoxication on criminal responsibility is a basic policy decision of the kind traditionally assigned to the legislature. Cf., Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790,…