[82 Ariz. 290] Alex B. Baker and Ford Dodd, Phoenix, for appellant.
Robert Morrision, Atty. Gen., and Wm. P. Mahoney, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
UDALL, Chief Justice.
The primary question presented by this criminal appeal is whether a defendant who allegedly takes or detains a person for any purpose other than for pecuniary gain can be lawfully charged or convicted of kidnaping under L.1935, ch. 13, sec. 1 (now A.R.S., § 13-492).
After a preliminary hearing before a magistrate, Wayne Vance Taylor, also known as Robert Vance Taylor, and hereinafter referred to as defendant, was arraigned in the superior court upon an information charging him with the crime of kidnaping for assault, a felony. The crime was alleged to have been committed by defendant in the following manner: that he
'* * * did then and there seize, confine, abduct, kidnap and carry away one Carla Hixon, unrelated to him, with intent then and there to hold and detain said person, and defendant did hold and detain said person for the purpose of assaulting her, and did then and there inflict upon Carla Hixon bodily harm, causing her to suffer therefrom.'
To this charge a plea of not guilty was entered.
A defense motion for a bill of particulars was granted in part, whereupon the county attorney filed the following:
'For a bill of particulars concerning the nature of the assault in the above [82 Ariz. 291] entitled and numbered cause, the County Attorney alleges the defendant
did with fists and hands violently strike and beat Carla Hixon, a female child, about her head and body, and did compel her, Carla Hixon, to hold his private parts.'
It was admitted by the State that defendant did not hold the child for ransom or monetary gain. Upon this record defense counsel moved to quash the information upon the ground that it did not charge defendant with the commission of an offense under the kidnaping statute. After oral argument the court denied the motion.
A trial was held, and, after the case had been submitted to it, the jury returned a verdict finding
'* * * the defendant guilty of the crime of kidnapping with the intent to commit assault and fix the punishment at life imprisonment without parole.'
Defense counsel then filed a motion for a new trial and also a motion in arrest of judgment, relying primarily upon the same grounds set forth in the motion to quash. Both motions were denied, whereupon the court pronounced judgment and sentence in accordance with the verdict of the jury. This appeal followed.
Inasmuch as only questions of law are urged in this appeal it will be unnecessary to recite the shocking ...