Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Beadle

Supreme Court of Arizona

May 28, 1958

The STATE of Arizona, Plaintiff,
v.
Alfred N. BEADLE, Defendant.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1958.

Page 345

[84 Ariz. 218] Robert Morrison, Atty. Gen., and Robert G. Mooreman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Snell & Wilmer, Phoenix, by Frederick K. Steiner, Jr., Phoenix, for defendant.

[84 Ariz. 219] UDALL, Chief Justice.

Defendant, Alfred N. Beadle, was charged by a direct information filed by the County Attorney of Maricopa County with two misdemeanors, allegedly committed on or about March 9, 1956, viz.: count No. 1, practicing as an architect without registration, and count No. 2, practicing as an engineer without registration, both in violation of section 67-1823, A.C.A.1939 (now A.R.S. § 32-145). Upon various legal grounds the defendant moved to quash the information. Before a ruling was made thereon the trial court, pursuant to Rule 346, Rules of Criminal Procedure, and with the consent of defendant and the county attorney, certified six questions of law relative to the Technical Registration Act of 1935 (A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 1). These questions, in the opinion of the trial court, were '* * * sufficiently doubtful and important to require the decision * * *' of this court before proceeding to a trial of the case.

For the purpose of certification the parties have stipulated that a trial of this action would show certain facts. The pertinent portion of that stipulation follows:

'4. That the State of Arizona contends, and for the purposes of this stipulation and certification the parties assume as true, that the evidence upon the trial of this action would show that the defendant, Alfred N. Beadle, without representing or holding himself out to be registered as an architect or as an engineer under the Technical Registration Act of 1935, and without designating himself as an 'Architect' or as an 'Engineer', and without being understood to be such by any customer of defendant or by any member of the public, designed for the owners thereof the building described in the information, to wit: a motor hotel costing in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) at 4670 Scottsdale Road, Maricopa County, Arizona, said design being made with reference only to the elements of convenience, utility, cost and aesthetic proportion of said building; and, to the extent necessary to embody said elements of design, said defendant prepared drawings and designated materials and elements of construction for the same, but did not design, represent, sell, or contribute any service with respect to the soundness or safety of said building. That at all times said defendant was not registered as an architect or as an engineer, and was not within any class of persons exempted from the application of the Act, as such are set forth in A.R.S. section 32-144 or section 67-1818, A.C.A.'

This is a companion case to State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel, 84 Ariz. 223, 326 P.2d 348, and State Board of Technical Registration v. Bauer, 84 [84 Ariz. 220] Ariz. 237, 326 P.2d 358 (hereinafter referred to as McDaniel or Bauer). All three cases were consolidated for oral argument as each involves some phase of the Technical Registration Act. We shall, therefore, refrain from repeating any pronouncements made in the other decisions that are pertinent and applicable to similar questions presented here.

The penal provisions of the Technical Registration Act of 1935 are found in section 67-1823, A.C.A.1939 (now A.R.S. §

Page 346

32-145). There being no material difference in the two sections we will quote from and refer to A.R.S. § 32-145. The pertinent portions of that section read as follows:

'Any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:

'1. Practices, offers to practice or by any implication holds himself out as qualified to practice as an architect, assayer, engineer, * * * who is not registered as provided by this chapter.

'2. Advertises or displays a card, sign or other device which may indicate to the public that he is an architect, assayer, engineer, * * * or is qualified to practice as such, who is not registered as provided by this chapter.

'3. Assumes the title of engineer, architect, * * * or uses or attempts to use as his own a certificate of registration of another, or uses or attempts to use an expired or revoked certificate of registration.

'4. * * *

'5. Otherwise violating any provision of this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.