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. Germain, 723 P.2d 105.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶3 Conduct that satisfies an element of a charged offense may not be used as an aggravating factor unless it “rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime.”
  • State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Decision of the Court statutorily enumerated aggravating factors, however, an aggravating factor alleged pursuant to the “catch-all” provision that is also an element of the offense can be used as an aggravator only if the nature of the aggravator “rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime.”
  • State v. Bonfiglio 266 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Bonfiglio 266 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    We conclude that appellant’s misconduct sufficiently “rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime.”
  • State of Arizona v. Kyle Evan Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State of Arizona v. Kyle Evan Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    § 13-702(C)(9); , (court may consider misconduct beyond level necessary to establish an element of the crime as an aggravating factor).
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    ¶8 However, “Bly permitted the use of a deadly weapon to be used as an aggravating factor despite the fact that it is a necessary element of the crime of armed robbery, only because of the legislative mandate in A.R.S.
  • State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    Ordinarily, if an element is not specified in section 13-702(C), it may not be used to aggravate a sentence because “to enhance punishment, in the absence of any legislative intent, by using the very elements of the crime as aggravating factors” would undermine “the carefully structured statutory scheme providing for presumptive sentences.”
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Flight, therefore, could not support *36 a finding of aggravation unless the court found it “rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (defendant’s evasion of police went beyond mere commission of crime of leaving scene of an accident, which requires only a failure to remain at scene and display license, and was properly used to aggravate sentence under broad language of subsection); , (where degree of defendant’s misconduct rises to level beyond that merely necessary to establish underlying crime, court may consider such conduct as aggravating factor).
  • 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
    we held that “[w]here the degree of a defendant’s misconduct rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime, the trial court may consider such conduct as an aggravating factor under the broad language” of A.R.S.
  • State v. Gillen 830 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Gillen 830 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    supp. op., 76 Ariz.Adv.Rep.
  • State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
    Reaching this conclusion
  • State v. Fagnant 839 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Fagnant 839 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    this court followed and clarified the holdings in Bly and Martinez, holding that an element of a crime may be used if the element is listed in the aggravation statute, A.R.S.
  • State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Recently, this court upheld the use of a necessary element of the crime to aggravate a sentence “[wjhere the degree of the defendant’s misconduct rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime.”
  • State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Appellant argues under State v. Germain, 150 Ariz 287, that the finding of the girl’s death as an aggravating circumstance was error because it is a necessary element of the underlying offense of which he was convicted, and therefore could not also be an aggravating factor in sentencing.
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989