Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mohr, 724 P.2d 1233.

28 citing documents.

Crosby v. Hon. fish/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Crosby v. Hon. fish/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(stating that “proof of venue need only be by a preponderance of the evidence”).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
See Casey, 205 Ariz. at 363 ¶ 13, 71 P.3d at 355 (noting that the state has the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt); -68 , -37 (App. 1986) (finding that a jury instruction “unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to appellant on an element of each offense ...
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
See Casey, 205 Ariz. at 363 ¶ 13, 71 P.3d at 355 (noting that the state has the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt); -68, -37 (App. 1986) (finding that a jury instruction “unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to appellant on an element of each offense .
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶30 Here, the jury instruction set forth a permissive inference, not a mandatory presumption, given the use of the phrase “may give rise.” (concluding that “gives rise to the inference” constitutes a mandatory presumption); (“may determine” is permissive); -48, -92 (App. 1983) (“may be inferred” is permis
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
A mandatory presumption instructs the jury that it "`must find the [ultimate] fact upon proof of the basic fact.'" , quoting County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 157 , 99 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
espects of the acq uisition o f all evid ence” -49, -90 (1990) (to rebut presumption that confessions resulting from custodial interrogation are inherently involuntary, “the state mus t sho w by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was free ly and volunta rily made”); (holding that “proof of venue need only b e by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a rea sonable d oubt”); cf. Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
1965 ; -69 , -38 (App.1986).
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
(“[I]t is the right of trial by an impartial jury in the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed that is preserved rather than the absolute right to a trial in the county.”) (emphasis added); , accord People v. Caruso, 119 Ill.2d 376 , 116 Ill.Dec.
State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Norton v. Superior Court 829 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Norton v. Superior Court 829 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
at 2459 ; -69 , -38 (App.1986)
State v. Salazar 774 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Salazar 774 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
warned trial courts not to confine a jury’s discretion by creating an irrebuttable presumption of guilt through an improper instruction.
State v. Cole 734 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Cole 734 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
(the phrase, “may give rise to the inference,” is permissive).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by