DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Woodall, 744 P.2d 732.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Floyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Floyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (finding that the state presented ample evidence by showing the defendant had a prior DUI, had been warned of the repercussions from drinking and driving, had turned down a ride before leaving the bar, drove over the speed limit, had a similar driving history, and had a BAC three times the threshold).
  • State v. Getzen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Getzen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (rejecting defendant’s claim that assigned counsel would have performed differently than a “stand-in” public defender as “purely speculative”).
  • State v. Candler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Candler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Later, the court clarified that the additional showing for reckless second- degree murder "does not create an additional culpable mental state but only requires an extreme form of recklessness greater than is required for manslaughter."
  • State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
    §§ 13-1102 to -1105; (observing that the drafters of the current homicide provisions intended that the “degree of culpable mental state” govern the degree of homicide).
  • State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    Stuart argues that because the jury was instructed that they should only consider the lesser-included offense in the event they were unable to reach verdicts as to the more serious offenses, the verdicts are inconsistent and invalid
  • State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    See, , (manslaughter); , (second degree murder); , (negligent homicide); , (aggravated assault).
  • State v. Anaya 799 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Anaya 799 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    rev. den.; State *543 v. Woodall, , rev. den.
  • State v. Woodall 785 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Woodall 785 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Gordon 778 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Gordon 778 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1989
    -90 , -59 (Ct.App.1986); , (jury determined automobile a dangerous instrument).
  • State v. Orduno 769 P.2d 1010 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Orduno 769 P.2d 1010 Ariz. 1989
    See, , (second degree murder); , (manslaughter); , (second degree murder); , (aggravated assault).
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    the court cited Venegas for the proposition that "an automobile clearly constitutes a ‘dangerous instrument.'" At 7, 744 P.2d at 738 .