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. Yarbrough, 638 P.2d 737.

36 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
  • State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
    Carter, 245 Ariz. at 393 ¶ 35; Garcia, 235 Ariz. at 630 ¶ 7; see Wall, 212 Ariz. at 4 ¶ 15; Celaya, 135 Ariz. at 252; Dugan, 125 Ariz. at 195; –73 (App. 1981).
  • 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
    See State v. Yarbrough , , 72-73, , 739-40 (App. 1981) ("[T]heft is always a lesser included offense of robbery.").
  • State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    –4, ¶ 15 (2006) (theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery); (same); (same); (same); –73 (App. 1981) (same).
  • State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    of robbery, –4 ¶ 15, –51 (2006); –73, –40 (App. 1981) (“theft is always a lesser included offense of robbery”); and (3) theft is a lesser-included offense of armed robbery, see State v. Kinkade, 147 Ariz. 250, 253, McNair, 141
  • 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
    (even absent overt threat, jury reasonably could conclude defendant’s fear-invoking behavior was directed at coercing surrender of property); (threat established where defendant entered store wearing stocking over his head, “went behind the counter, squatted down, and with a bag in his right hand demanded that the victim put all the money in the bag”).
  • State v. Morrison 889 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Morrison 889 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    this court held that theft was a lesser-included offense of robbery.
  • State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Criticized State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    The state refers to two Arizona cases, , , to support its argument.
  • State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
    §§ 13-1901(4) and -1902(A); see Bishop, 144 Ariz. at 524 , 698 P.2d at 1243
  • State v. Befford 715 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Befford 715 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Because theft is complete once control is exercised over property with the intent to deprive, whether or not the property is carried away, Report of Arizona Criminal Code Commission 179 (1975); , it is clear on the facts of this case that theft had been committed.
  • State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
    (where defense was alibi and there was no evidence that firearm used by defendant was inoperable at the time of crime, failure to instruct on unarmed lesser included offenses was not error); , (where entire defense was misidentification and no evidence mitigating threat, defendant not entitled to lesser included instruction on theft).
  • State v. Sowards 709 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Sowards 709 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    and held that theft as defined in A.R.S.
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
    -96 , -73 (1980); -73 , -40 (App. 1981); Rule 23.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-98065 687 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-98065 687 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Mitchell 675 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Mitchell 675 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Cousin 664 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Cousin 664 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
    Recently, , the Arizona Court of Appeals held that theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery under the new code.
  • State v. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982