Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cook, 916 P.2d 1074.

35 citing documents.

State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 497-98 (1984); see U.S. Const. amend.
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶9 “The Blockburger same-elements test focuses on the statutory elements of the two crimes charged, not on the factual proof that is offered or relied upon to secure a conviction.”
State v. Redzinak 422 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Redzinak 422 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Cook , , 365, , 1081 (App. 1995).
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
When applying the test, the court focuses “on the statutory elements of the two crimes charged, not on the factual proof that is offered or relied upon to secure a conviction.”
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
V; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; ¶ 10, (citing United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 744 (1993), ).
Dennis Brodsky v. State of Arizona 189 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Dennis Brodsky v. State of Arizona 189 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696, (1993); -61, -77 (App. 1995).
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In applying the “elements” test, we focus on the elements of each provision without regard to the particular facts of the case before us. Siddle, 202 Ariz. at 516, ¶ 10 , 47 P.3d at 1154 ( , ).
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993)
In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
The double jeopardy provisions in the federal and Arizona constitutions "do not significantly differ, and the same standard generally is used to analyze both provisions.” n. 2, n. 2 (App.2000); , 364—65, -81 (App.1995).
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
In applying this test we focus on the elements of each provision and do not “consider the particular facts of the case.” , see also Brown, 432 U.S. at 166 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Welch 12 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
(“[Tjhere is no indication that there is a different double jeopardy analysis under the Arizona Constitution.”); , (“Arizona’s courts generally interpret this clause ‘in conformity to the interpretation
Jardanowski v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 3 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Jardanowski v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 3 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Eagle 992 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Eagle 992 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Braun 914 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Braun 914 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
If each statute defining the respective offenses contains an element not found in the other, the offenses are not the “same,” and multiple punishments are not precluded, , even assuming that the criminal and forfeiture proceedings are separate and that both result in punishment.
Marzolf v. Superior Court 912 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Marzolf v. Superior Court 912 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995