Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re William G., 963 P.2d 287.

42 citing documents.

State v. McKinley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McKinley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Civil negligence is satisfied by “[m]ere inadvertence” of any “‘unreasonable’ risk.”
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(recognizing that, absent an admission, determining a person’s intent requires drawing an inference “from all relevant [] circumstances”).
State of Arizona v. George Willie Rios 528 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. George Willie Rios 528 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Additionally, while a defendant’s mental state is often challenging to prove, absent an outright admission, it may be properly “ascertained by inference from all relevant surrounding circumstances.” (“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.”).
State v. Quinonez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Quinonez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
n.1 (App. 1997) (noting that both statutory criminal negligence and criminal recklessness require "a 'substantial' risk and a 'gross' deviation from applicable norms").
In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“We recognize that absent a person’s outright admission regarding his state of mind, his mental state must necessarily be ascertained by inference from all relevant surrounding circumstances.”).4 III.
State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
n.1 (App. 1997) (explaining criminal negligence differs from recklessness because negligence “requires only a failure to perceive a risk, as compared to the recklessness requirement of an awareness and conscious disregard of the risk”) (emphasis added).
State v. Hamby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hamby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re R.E. 387 P.3d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In Re R.E. 387 P.3d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
maintains the juvenile court was required to consider whether his conduct was a gross deviation from the conduct of reasonable “juveniles of like age, intelligence and maturity.”
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[A]bsent a person’s outright admission regarding his state of mind, his mental state must necessarily be ascertained by inference from all relevant surrounding circumstances.”
State v. McKenzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McKenzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Instead, “the jury will usually have to infer [a defendant’s mental state] from his behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event.” Id.; (recognizing that, “absent a person’s outright admission regarding his state of mind, his mental state must necessarily be ascertained by inference from all relevant surrounding circumstances”).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(noting that when determining one’s state of mind, absent an admission, the court uses inferences “from all relevant surrounding circumstances”).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
When determining one’s intent, absent an admission, the court uses inferences “from all relevant surrounding circumstances.”
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 107 The case of , is instructive on this point.
In re JESSI W. 152 P.3d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re JESSI W. 152 P.3d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶ 25 Miles cites , in support of his argument that his behavior constituted nothing more than civil negligence.
State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
See In re William G., 192 Ariz. 208, 212
In re the Welfare of A.A.M. 684 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re Aam 684 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2004