Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tschilar, 27 P.3d 331.

82 citing documents.

State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 36 , (“A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.”) (citation omitted).
State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
We normally begin with the statute’s plain language, ¶ 25 , and give words their ordinary meaning unless the context or circumstances indicate that the legislature intended a different meaning.
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
We review a trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion
State v. Vandever 119 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Vandever 119 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶7 A defendant “is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence,” , 436 ¶ 36, but a trial court’s refusal to give an instruction for a lack of factual basis is within its discretion.
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
§ 13-702(C)(17) (“Any other factors which the court may deem appropriate to the ends of justice.”).18 -36, ¶¶ 30-34, -40 (App. 2001).
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 15 , (“Apprendi had not been decided when Tschilar was sentenced, but, because it presents a new rule of constitutional law, its rationale is applied to cases pending on direct review.”).
State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 15 , (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Oscar Manuel Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Oscar Manuel Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Jury Instruction ¶10 Lopez also contends the trial court erroneously refused his proffered jury instruction on “passing con trol.” We will not disturb a trial court’s decision to refuse a jury instruction absent a clear abuse of its discretion, P.3d 331 (App. 2001), but review de novo w hether the proffered instruction correctly stated the law.
State v. Monaco 83 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Monaco 83 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Johnson 72 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Johnson 72 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In other situations, however, Arizona courts have found no constitutional problem when a judge’s post-trial factual finding may have affected the sentence but did not expose the defendant to a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum for purposes of Apprendi ¶ 14 For example, , Division One of this court concluded that Apprendi does not require a jury to determine whether the defendant had safely released a kidnapping victim for purposes of A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Gross 31 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Gross 31 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
However, “because [Apprendi] presents a new rule of constitutional law, its rationale is applied to cases pending on direct review.” ¶ 15 , ¶ 15 (App. 2001) (citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 , 107 S.Ct.