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. Winter, 706 P.2d 1228.

27 citing documents.

  • State v. Laws Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Laws Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See id.; (“[A] general citation of the theft statute in the indictment suffices to charge a violation of its subparts” because theft is a unitary crime)
  • State v. Hon kalauli/kroll 414 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Hon kalauli/kroll 414 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    -65 (App. 1985) (“[A] general citation to the theft statute in the indictment suffices to charge a violation of its subparts” because of the unitary nature of the crime of theft).
  • State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    ¶¶ 5, 9, 904 (App. 2009); -65, -32 (App. 1985), see also Andersen v. United States, 170 U.S. 481, 500-01 (1898) (indictment not duplicitous where murder may h
  • Earl v. Hon. garcia/state 324 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    -90, ¶ 14 , -906 (App. 2009); , *108 ¶ 12, ¶ 8 , , -65 , -32 (App.1985)
  • In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    ¶10 the state suggests the delinquency petition was amended automatically, without a formal request by the state or an express ruling by the court, and that the amendment was constitutionally permissible because changing the offense from subsection (A)(1) to subsection (A)(3) did
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    For this proposition, the state relies on this court’s
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    §§ 13-1801 and 13-1802 “are related statutes that constitute one law”); P.2d 1228 (App. 1985) (theft is single offense under § 13-1802); P.2d 185 (App. 1982) (§ 13-1802 defines single crime of theft).
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    2169 , 85 L.Ed.2d 525 (1985); , Ariz. R.Crim.
  • State v. Kamai 911 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Kamai 911 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    in which we held that unlawful use was not a lesser included offense of theft.
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
    It does that, but it also provides that “[t]he charging document shall be deemed amended to conform to the evidence adduced at any court proceeding.” , holds that the indictment is “automatically amended to conform to the trial evidence, provided the amendment makes no change in the ñatee of the underlying crime.” The evidence was that defendant stole the Sherrills’ car.
  • 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. Medina 836 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Medina 836 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Acosta 801 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Acosta 801 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    an officer stopped a vehicle because it was traveling against the lane divider, weaving between lanes, and without an expiration date sticker on its Missouri license plate.