Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Madrid, 85 P.3d 1054.

38 citing documents.

E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
See Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. at 39 ¶ 7; ¶ 10 (App. 2004) (holding that reasonable expenses incurred by murder victim’s children to attend trial qualified as economic losses and thus children were entitled to restitution).
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
(affirming restitution award of victim’s lost wages incurred to attend trial); ¶ 10 (App. 2004) (concluding victims’ travel expenses to attend trial can be ordered as restitution).
State v. Bartik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bartik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 5 (App. 2004) (citations omitted).
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 5 (App. 2004) ( ¶ 7 (2002)).
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Accordingly, to be recoverable as restitution: “(1) the loss must be economic, (2) the loss must be one the victim would not have incurred but for the criminal conduct, and (3) the criminal conduct must directly cause the economic loss.” Leal, 248 Ariz. at 4 ¶ 12 ( ¶ 5 (App. 2004)); ¶ 7 (2002)).
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re Braden C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re Braden C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See State v. 3 ¶ 5 (App. 2004); William L., 211 Ariz. at 241, ¶ 17 (restitution based on amount remaining on car loan appropriate even if it exceeds car’s market value if market value would not make victim whole).
State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
To be recoverable as restitution: “(1) the loss must be economic, (2) the loss must be one that the victim would not have incurred but for the criminal conduct, and (3) the criminal conduct must directly cause the economic loss.” ¶ 5 (App. 2004) ( ¶ 7 (2002)).
D.D. v. Hon granville/simpson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
D.D. v. Hon granville/simpson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Economic loss does not include “consequential damages,” that is, damages that “[did] not flow directly from the defendant’s criminal activity.” ¶ 5 (App. 2004); A.R.S.
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“We will uphold a restitution award if it bears a reasonable relationship to the victim’s loss.” ¶ 5 (App. 2004).
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re J.U. 384 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re J.U. 384 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(finding travel expenses incurred by murder victim’s children to attend trial “constitute an economic loss for which they are entitled to restitution”).
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 5, (citation omitted); (stating the trial court has an “affirmative duty” to require a defendant to make full restitution for the economic loss sustained by the victim).
State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“A loss is recoverable as restitution if it meets three requirements: (1) the loss must be economic, (2) the loss must be one that the victim would not have incurred but for the criminal conduct, and (3) the criminal conduct must directly cause the economic loss.” ¶ 5
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re William L. 119 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re William L. 119 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 5 , (trial court has “substantial discretion” in *241 determining amount of victim’s economic loss).
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
the distinguishing feature is how directly the loss flows from the crime”); see also State v. Ma drid, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 1, (upholding restitution awarded for “reasonable” expenses related to murder victim’s children’s trial attendance).