Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Korzep v. Superior Court, 838 P.2d 1295.

36 citing documents.

Gary Dwayne Skaggs v. Hon. Fink 540 P.3d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Gary Dwayne Skaggs v. Hon. Fink 540 P.3d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
APPLICABILITY OF KORZEP ¶9 (hereafter Korzep IV), as reopening the Rule 12.9 deadline in some circumstances where a conviction is vacated.
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state 515 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2022
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state 515 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2022
on defenses that, based on the evidence presented to the grand jury, are relevant to the jurors determining whether probable cause exists to indict the defendant”); Crimmins, 137 Ariz. at 42 (remanding to grand jury where it was given an “inaccurate version of the facts in the context of inadequate instructions on the applicable law” regarding citizen’s arrest statutes); –41 (App. 1991) (ordering remand to grand jury to instruct on justification defense under A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Roger Delane Wilson 510 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Roger Delane Wilson 510 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Id.; see Almeida, (“[T]he effect of the crime prevention privilege is to allow a person to use force in preventing a crime, rather than compel him to await the commission of the unlawful act.” (quoting Korzep v. Superior Court (Korzep II), n.2 (App. 1991))).
State v. Repucci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Repucci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ct. , , 540, (remand for new finding of probable cause required when grand jury was not instructed on law that "could conceivably lead the grand jury to eschew an indictment").
Louis E Cespedes v. Hon. lee/state Ariz. 2017
Louis E Cespedes v. Hon. lee/state Ariz. 2017
-41 (App. 1991); -27 ¶¶ 12-16 (App. 2009) (discussing prosecutor’s duty to instruct grand jury on relevant defense of entrapment).
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
Ct., In & For Maricopa County, , and Korzep v. Super Ct., In & For County of Yuma
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
“‘[T]he effect of the crime prevention privilege is to allow a person to use force in preventing a crime, rather than compel him to await the commission of the unlawful act.” Korzep v. Superior Court (Korzep II), n.2, n.2 (App. 1991), quoting Note, Justification for the Use of Force in the Criminal Law, 13 Stan.
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶11 Nor are we persuaded otherwise by language in the appellate court cases relied upon by Raimonde, P.2d 1295 (App. 1991), P.2d 712 (App. 1987).
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
838 3No such temporal limitation is required in our manslaughter statute, because the state must furnish substantial evidence of the elements of both death and causation to secure a conviction.
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-40, -01 (App. 1991) (if presumption has been rebutted, it vanishes).
State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
See, ¶ 18, (discussing rebuttable presumption of intoxication or non-intoxication in prosecutions for driving under the influence); (noting that A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Thus, “where a conviction has been reversed because of insufficient evidence, the defendant cannot be retried.”
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
For an explanation of the legal effect of the presumption, see Korzep v. Superior Court (Ellsworth)
Peak v. Acuna 50 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2002
Peak v. Acuna 50 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2002
2211 (1982); P.2d 1295 (App. 1991).
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
¶ 17 As we have held with specific regard to the presumption in § 13-411(0), “[t]his presumption is rebuttable and vanishes when the state provides contradictory evidence.” Korzep v. Superior Court (Korzep III), , (emphasis added).
State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Browning 854 P.2d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Browning 854 P.2d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Stewart v. Commonwealth, 793 S.W.2d 859 (Ky.App.1990) (construing a burglary statute); , (commenting, in a discussion of the law of justification, on the policy enunciated in A.R.S.