Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Victoria K., 11 P.3d 1066.

30 citing documents.

Hill v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Hill v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
3 HILL v. STATE Decision of the Court ¶10 Hill relies on to argue that hindering prosecution cannot be based on communications to law enforcement.
State v. Matthews 428 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Matthews 428 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In re Victoria K. , , 530, ¶ 15, , 1069 (App. 2000).
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
However, this Court has previously held that failure to stop is not a lesser included offense of flight from a law enforcement vehicle, ¶ 12 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 17 (App. 2000)), and we find no error.
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.’ ”) (alteration in original) (-30, ¶ 9 , -69 (App.2000)).
Ruiz v. Lopez 236 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ruiz v. Lopez 236 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“ ‘[F]or one offense to be included within another, greater offense, the greater must have all the elements of the lesser plus at least one additional element.’ ”)
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In addition, the offenses must be such “that the lesser cannot be committed without always satisfying the corresponding elements of the greater.”
In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
A crime is a lesser-included offense of the originally charged crime if “by its very nature, [it is] always a constituent part of the greater offense, or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.” -30, ¶ 9 , -69 (App.2000).
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
“And, conversely, it must also be shown that the lesser cannot be committed without always satisfying the corresponding elements of the greater.” ¶ 21 , ( ¶ 17 , ) (internal quotations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶¶1, 10-11, ¶¶1, 10-11 (App. 2001)
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-31, ¶¶ 15-19 , -70 (App.2000); see also Shephard v. Florida, 455 So.2d 479, 480 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
And, conversely, it must also be shown “that the lesser cannot be committed without always satisfying the corresponding elements of the greater.”
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
& State Colls., , (discussing rules of statutory construction); ¶ 21 , (court employs tools of statutory construction to interpret court rules).
State v. Old West Bonding Co. 56 P.3d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Old West Bonding Co. 56 P.3d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(applying interpretative presumption that the Arizona Supreme Court intends to change an existing rule when the court modifies its language).