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. Merrill, 665 P.2d 1022.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Clay 535 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Clay 535 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (holding that construing “victim” narrowly to exclude insurance company that paid theft victim’s claim would “improperly limit[] the rehabilitative and punitive purposes of requiring the payment of restitution”).
  • State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • 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
    (broadly construing “victim” in A.R.S.
  • State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    A restitution order does not result in any legal disqualification or incapacity on the part of a defendant; it is simply a remedial measure that forces him “to recognize the specific consequences of his criminal activity and accept responsibility for those consequences.” Ste ffy, 173 Ariz. at 94 , 839 P.2d at 1139 ( , ).
  • In Re Erika V. 983 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Erika V. 983 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    See, , (court affirmed trial court order of restitution to Arizona Department of Economic Security, which paid for psychological evaluation and counseling of victim and her mother); , (restitution permitted to victim’s insurance carrier which had reimbursed the victim for losses due to theft).
  • Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Thus, despite the conclusion of probation, a judgment exists until satisfied “to make the victim whole and to make the offender ‘recognize the specific consequences of his criminal activity and accept responsibility for those consequences.’” , (citation omitted)
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Freeman 848 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Freeman 848 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    The objectives of mandatory restitution are both reparative and rehabilitative in nature: to make the victim whole, , and to make the offender “recognize the specific consequences of his criminal activity and accept responsibility for those consequences,”
  • State v. Blanton 844 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Blanton 844 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Steffy 839 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Steffy 839 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Reynolds 832 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Reynolds 832 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-503009 830 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-503009 830 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Prieto 836 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Prieto 836 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Iniguez 821 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Iniguez 821 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. French 801 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. French 801 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    In the Matter of Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
  • State v. Maupin 801 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Maupin 801 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    § 13-603(C), it must be considered a “victim of the crime.” This court gave a broad interpretation to the term “victim” , when it held that an insurance company that reimbursed the owner of property involved in an attempted burglary was a victim within the meaning of A.R.S.
  • State v. Young 670 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Young 670 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983