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. DiGiulio, 835 P.2d 488.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Best Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Best Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,’” (), and may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, Pena, 209 Ariz. at 505, ¶ 7 ( ).
  • State v. Lopata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Lopata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (attempted trafficking in stolen property does not require proof property was stolen); (defendant may be convicted of attempted receipt of stolen property when property is not in fact stolen); -44 (1975) (same).
  • State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 13-4036 (appellate court may “affirm or modify the judgment appealed from, and may grant a new trial or render any judgment or make any other order which is consistent with [] justice and the rights of the state and the defendant”); –62 (App. 1992) (collecting cases in which Arizona appellate courts have modified judgment to reflect conviction of a lesser-included offense when there was insufficient proof of an element required for the greater offense).
  • State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 14, (“[R]ecklessly is a lesser- included mental state of knowingly.” (citation omitted)); (“Even though second degree trafficking requires the state to show that defendant acted recklessly, that culpable mental state was established by proof of a higher mental state, that he acted knowingly.” (citation omitted)).
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State v. Beucler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Beucler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    (conviction for trafficking need not be vacated where defendant acquitted of theft); -69, -41 (1975) (upholding verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity as to one count but guilty as to others in charges arising out o
  • A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ("in most jurisdictions the rule is that consistency between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment is unnecessary”); , ("there is no constitutional requirement that verdicts be consistent”); -47 , ("To vitiate two verdicts because of inconsistency, they must necessarily be based on inconsistent findings of fact.
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” , (citation omitted).
  • Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
  • Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
    See, (upholding verdict for trafficking even though jury acquitted of theft); State v. Zakhar, 4 Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct.
  • Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    ¶ 4 In apparent recognition of this holding, Files next argues that a sex-for-fee offer to someone who will not actually engage in the proposed sexual conduct constitutes, at best, an attempted violation of § ll-28(l)(c)
  • State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    -33 , -85 (1969) (consistency unnecessary; inconsistent verdicts may be result of leniency); , (“there is no constitutional requirement that verdicts be consistent.”); -16 , -77 (App.1991) (no error in jury finding aggravated assault with deadly weapon but finding state had failed to prove dangerous nature of offense).
  • State v. Taylor 931 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Taylor 931 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
    (“There is no constitutional requirement that verdicts be consistent.”).