Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Steiger, 781 P.2d 616.

65 citing documents.

State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
A penal statute will be held to be vague if “it fails to give persons of average intelligence reasonable notice of what behavior is prohibited____”
State v. Jones 865 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Jones 865 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(legislature has “sole power to determine what acts constitute crimes”).
State v. Crisp 855 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Crisp 855 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See Matter of Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Western 812 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1991
State v. Western 812 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1991
[and] entrusts] lawmaking ‘to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat.’ ” (citation omitted))
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Terrell 811 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Terrell 811 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
“a penal statute is vague if it fails to give persons of average intelligence reasonable notice of what behavior is prohibited or is drafted in such a manner that it permits arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” The court found A.R.S.
State v. Taylor 808 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Taylor 808 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
is not constitutionally protected and clearly falls within the statute’s legitimate scope,” this exception to normal standing requirements is reserved for instances of “realistic danger that the statute will significantly jeopardize recognized first amendment protections of individuals not before the court.”