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. Engram, 831 P.2d 362.

25 citing documents.

  • State v. Bruno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Bruno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See, (finding that an apartment building with only one unit leased that is undergoing renovation may be considered a residential structure).
  • State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See, STATE v. BITHELL Decision of the Court 368 (App. 1991) (supp. op); (quoting Walker v. United States, 418 F.2d 1116, 1119 (D.C.
  • State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Alaniz-Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Alaniz-Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶10 Our supreme court has instructed that “[w]hen a jury returns guilty verdicts for both a charged offense and a lesser included offense, the preferable course of action is to ‘explain the situation to the jury, reinstruct on the law, and allow the jury to deliberate further.’” ( ).
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    (noting that “every case that we can find ...
  • State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    As appellant points out, our supreme court has concluded that “the preferable course of action” when a jury returns guilty verdicts for both the charged offense and a lesser-included offense is “to ‘explain the situation to the jury, reinstruet on the law, and allow the jury to deliberate further.’ ”
  • State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    cognizant of two cases involving inconsistent verdicts on greater and lesser offenses under the same count holding that, after consultation with counsel, “the preferable course of action is to ‘explain the situation to the jury, reinstruct on the law, and allow the jury to deliberate further.’ ”
  • State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
    *181 When a jury returns guilty verdicts for both a charged offense and a lesser included offense, the preferable course of action is to “explain the situation to the jury, reinstruct on the law, and allow the jury to deliberate further.”
  • State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Bass 911 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Bass 911 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    originally held that it was not, but in a supplemental opinion, Engram withdrew that holding because it had been based on a case that was later depublished.
  • State v. Ekmanis 901 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Ekmanis 901 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    The trial court refused the instruction, , which stated: “In State v. McDonald, 70 Ariz.Adv.Rep.