Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Baltzell, 857 P.2d 1291.

28 citing documents.

State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
–92 (1996) (–39 (App. 1992)).
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
–92 (1996) (–39 (App. 1992)).
In Re Colson D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Colson D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(finding attorneys’ fees incurred to close victim’s estate “are 4 STATE v. REED Opinion of the Court proper restitutionary items” where no evidence indicates the fees incurred “were unreasonable or contrary to custom”); (“We believe that customary and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to close the victim’s estate should be allowed” as restitution.).
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Briseno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Briseno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Noguero v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Noguero v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(affirming the trial court’s admission of photographs “as demonstrating and explaining the basis of the investigator’s opinion”).
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§§ 13- 603(C), -804(B); and the court did so.
State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(failure to object to components of award at restitution hearing waives all but fundamental error); Moreno-Medrano, 185 P.3d at 140 (appellant must argue fundamental error to invoke review of waived issue).
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(concluding “‘customary and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to close the victim’s estate’” constitute economic loss for restitution purposes)
State v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
See, e.g., Hummert, , , ("occupant kinematics” evidence); Bible, , Troutman v. Valley Nat’l Bank, , 518-19 & n. 2, , 815-16 & n. 2 (App.1992) (thermogram diagnostic test); -87
State v. Arner 988 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Arner 988 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Lindsley 953 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Lindsley 953 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“The statute mandating recovery for economic loss is quite broad, and we have allowed restitution for a wide variety of expenses caused by the conduct of persons convicted of crimes.”
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by