Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Larson, 214 P.3d 429.

26 citing documents.

State v. Baca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Baca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 23 (App. 2009) (argument not advanced in opening brief is waived).
State v. Fordson 555 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Fordson 555 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶27 But “[s]tatements ‘offered for a purpose other than [proving] the truth of the matter asserted’ are not hearsay.” Allen, 253 Ariz. at 328, ¶ 27 ( ¶ 21 (App. 2009)).
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 11 , (elements test for lesser-included offenses); ¶ 8 , (same).
Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 357 P.3d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 357 P.3d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
3 ¶ 6 , (“[W]e may not construe part of a statute in a way that would render any other part of the statute void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.” ( , (internal quotation marks omitted))).
Bourne v. McClennen 333 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bourne v. McClennen 333 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 1-213 (2002), and construe the statute so that “no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant,” ¶ 6 , ( ¶ 14 , ) (internal quotation mark omitted).
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
8 STATE v. FELIX Opinion of the Court Ariz. 103, ¶ 6
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶¶ 16-18 , (vacating conviction and sentence when offense was not specifically charged as an alternative crime as required by statute).
State v. Breed 286 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Breed 286 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 8 , (recognizing that the “greater offense must have all the elements of the lesser offense plus at least one additional element”); ¶ 4 , (finding it impossible to commit theft under § 13-1802(A)(2) without also co
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
However, we may not construe part of a statute in a way that would render any other part of the statute “„void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.‟” quoting Pinal Vista Props.
State v. Lindner 252 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Lindner 252 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Paul David Windsor, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Paul David Windsor, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
When called upon to interpret a statute, we consider its plain language, giving meaning to each word and phrase “„so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.‟” 3 Windsor appears to all but concede that, had the state charged him under § 13-3553(A)(2), sufficient evidence would exist to support his conviction.