Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan, 165 P.3d 238.

36 citing documents.

State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 17 (App. 2007) (“Being ‘aware’ of the risk and the ‘justifiability’ of the risk are also separate and distinct inquiries.”).
State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Romero v. Langston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Romero v. Langston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“We review the trial court’s determination of relevance for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
Security Alarm Financing Enterprises, L.P. v. Fuller 398 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Security Alarm Financing Enterprises, L.P. v. Fuller 398 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn 394 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn 394 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 5 (App. 2007); see Ariz. R.P.
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
n.7 , , 243 n.7 (App. 2007) (noting that, even if judgment of acquittal granted on charged offense, “lesser included offense would still be applicable”); , (instruction on lesser-included offense proper if supported by evidence).
State v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
to support his argument that a justification for conduct can be used to show the lack of the necessary mens rea.
Kool v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kool v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bernstein 317 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 5 , (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(state can appeal order granting motion to preclude evidence, but not order denying preclusion).
Brewer v. Rees 265 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Brewer v. Rees 265 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Nielson v. Hicks 240 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Nielson v. Hicks 240 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Nichols 195 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Nichols 195 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008