Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gamez, 258 P.3d 263.

44 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Charlie Conley Jr. 523 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Charlie Conley Jr. 523 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State v. Aldana 497 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Aldana 497 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We look first to the language of the statute because it is the best indication of the legislature’s intent, id., and construe statutes that “relate to the same subject matter or have the same general purpose as one another” as though they constitute one law, ¶ 27 (App. 2011); (Different sections of a single statute should be interpreted consistently.).
State v. Buffington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Buffington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
at 60, ¶ 9 ( ¶ 30 (App. 2011)).
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gonzalez-Gunter v. Gunter 471 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gonzalez-Gunter v. Gunter 471 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶10 “To determine a statute’s meaning, we look first to its text[,]” ¶ 7 (2017), and construe statutes that “relate to the same subject matter or have the same general purpose as one another” as though they constitute one law, ¶ 27 (App. 2011).
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 25 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“To determine a statute’s meaning, we look first to its text[,]” Burbey, 243 Ariz. at 147 ¶ 7, and construe statutes that “relate to the same subject matter or have the same general purpose as one another” as though they constitute one law, ¶ 27 (App. 2011).
State v. Cervantes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Cervantes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Britton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Britton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(courts presume legislature is aware of existing laws when it enacts new ones); ¶ 27 (App. 2011) (same).
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Garcia , , ¶ 8, 334 P.3d at 1289 ; see also State v. Gamez , , ¶ 27, , 267 (App. 2011) ("Statutes that are in pari materia -those that relate to the same subject matter or have the same general purpose as one another-should be construed together as though they constitute one law.").
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 27 (App. 2011) (“Statutes that are in pari materia — those that relate to the same subject matter or have the same general purpose as one another — should be 8 STATE v. JONES Opinion of the Court statutes sepa
State v. Bracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 25 (App. 2011).
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
Either scenario would be plainly inconsistent with the legislature’s decision to designate all those circumstances as statutory “defenses,” not “elements.” , 451 ¶ 36, (characterizing the defense under § 13-1407(B) as an “affirmative defense”); , 172-73 ¶ 18, -83 (App. 2011) (same).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
Either scenario would be plainly inconsistent with the legislature’s decision to designate all those circumstances as statutory “defenses,” not “elements.” ¶ 36, (characterizing the defense under § 13-1407(B) as an “affirmative defense”); -73 ¶ 18, -83 (App. 2011) (same).
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Pamela Jacqueline Williams 343 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Pamela Jacqueline Williams 343 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Moreover, “[w]hen the legislature intends that the mens rea apply to the status of the victim, it says so explicitly.”
State v. Pledger 341 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pledger 341 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 30, this court noted that “[w]hen the legislature intends that 3 STATE v. PLEDGER Opinion of the Court the mens rea apply to the status of the victim, it says so explicitly.”
State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(if legislature intended to require state to prove defendant’s knowledge of victim’s age “it would have said so”).
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
7 ___ (App. 2011), our analysis differs in some respects.