Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Farley, 19 P.3d 1258.

42 citing documents.

State v. Hendricks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hendricks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Thus, “an affirmative defense is a matter of avoidance of culpability even if the State proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 11 (App. 2001).
State v. Lowery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Lowery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
–44, ¶ 7 (App. 2001) (explaining that before the legislature enacted § 13-205(A), the parties’ burdens on self-defense were governed by Arizona common law, which required the State to prove the defendant’s conduct was not justified if the defendant presented “any evidence” of justification).
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 13-3553(A)(2); ¶ 8 (App. 2001) (explaining the state has the burden of proving every element of an alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
It ‘does not serve to negative any facts of the crime which the State is to prove in order to convict..,,'" , 544 ¶ 11, (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 207 , 97 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
.’” ¶ 11, (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 207 (1977)).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
9 STATE v. HOLLE Opinion of the Court criminal defendant who presented ‘any evidence’ [to support such a defense] triggered the State’s obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was not justified.” -60 (App. 2001).4 In State v. Byrd, in the context of a conviction for molestation of a child, the defendant argued the trial court’s instruction, which mirrored the language of § 13-1407(E), constituted unconstitutional burden shifting.
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶42 Like other affirmative defenses, the defense of entrapment “is a matter of avoidance of culpability even if the State proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gamez 258 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Gamez 258 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
“An erroneous instruction regarding the State’s burden could be fundamental error.” ¶8 , (emphasis added).
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
§ 13-205(A) (Supp.2006), “[except as otherwise provided by a law, a defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 11 , (an affirmative defense is not an element of an offense but “is a matter of avoidance of culpability even if the State proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-10, n. 10 , , 1068-69 n. 10 (App. 1999) (purported violations of federal and state Equal Protection clauses are analyzed identically); -45, ¶ 12 , -61 (App.2001) (federal and state guarantees of due process are similar, if not identical).
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
1174 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1207 (2004); , 544-45 ¶ 12, -61 (App.2001).
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970); P.3d 1258 (App. 2001) (Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require a state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to establish criminal conduct).
State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Garfield 92 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Garfield 92 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
§ 13-205(A), which provides that “a defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence.” , (“Justification is an affirmative defense.”).
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
In affirming his conviction, ¶¶1-2, ¶¶1-2 (App. 2001), in which it had held that the justification instruction does not violate due process.
State of Arizona v. Alice C. Jeffrey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Alice C. Jeffrey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
1 see also State v. Martinez, ___ Ariz. ___, (same).
State v. Martinez 47 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Martinez 47 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-545 , -1261 (App.2001).
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 4 , (superseded by statute on other grounds)