DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Everett v. State, 356 P.2d 394.

68 citing documents.

  • State v. Lampe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Lampe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See King, 225 Ariz. at 88, ¶ 2 and 90, ¶ 16 (A full two-liter bottle thrown at the defendant’s head “suffices to meet the ‘slightest evidence’ standard that supports the giving of a self-defense instruction.”); -99 (1960) (Victim following 4 STATE v. LAMPE Decision of the Court defendant closely with his hand in his pocket and threatening to “finish doing you in” was a hostile demonstration.)
  • 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
    ¶ 11; (“Defendant claimed he was acting in self-defense, and that what he did was necessary for his own protection.
  • State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
  • State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
    .”); (stating that victim made a “hostile demonstration” by following the defendant closely, placing his hand in a pocket, and threatening to harm the defendant).
  • State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    (defendant entitled to self-defense instruction upon “slightest evidence of justification for the defensive act”); -99 , (defendant must produce “some evidence on each material element of the plea of self-defense”).
  • David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
    See, , (reversing conviction for assault with deadly weapon where trial court failed to instruct jury on self-defense).
  • Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    § 28-1221 , rev’d on other grounds, , which, appellant argues, interpreted a predecessor statute as exempting only drivers of government vehicles from the financial responsibility laws.
  • State v. Duarte 798 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Duarte 798 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hunter 688 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hunter 688 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Lujan 664 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Lujan 664 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Williams 644 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Williams 644 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Sourivathong 636 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Sourivathong 636 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    Annot., 43 A.L.R.3d 221 , 232.
  • State v. Snodgrass 570 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Snodgrass 570 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Additionally, the statute has previously been construed to permit an illegally arrested person to “resist the arrest, using such force as may be reasonably necessary, short of killing the arresting officer.” , , see also, State v. Lamb, 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Garcia 560 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Garcia 560 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1977
    “As was stated in Spence v. Territory, supra [ , 108 P. 229 ], the defendant’s burden with respect to his plea of self-defense extends ‘no further than to raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to whether his act was justifiable.’ (13 Ariz. at page 25, 108 P. at page 229.)” -97
  • State v. Johnson 492 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Johnson 492 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1972
    Where there is the slightest evidence of self-defense and, hence, justification for an assault, the issue must be submitted to the jury, , .
  • State v. Burns 488 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Burns 488 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    ng the denial of a motion for a continuance has been reiterated on numerous occasions by the Arizona Supreme Court: “Continuances are, to a great extent, discretionary with the trial court, and an appellate tribunal will not review its action in this respect unless it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused.”
  • State v. Bowen 449 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Bowen 449 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1969
    : “An alleged denial of a speedy trial must be considered in light of the fact [sic] and circumstances of each case, , , and determined from a common sense viewpoint.
  • State v. Cotton 443 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Cotton 443 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1968
    we said: “Continuances are, to a great extent, discretionary with the trial court, and an appellate tribunal will not review its action in this respect unless it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused.” We are of the opinion there was no abuse of discretion.
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    “ * * *, the ‘law is that a person illegally arrested may resist the arrest using such force as may be reasonably necessary, short of killing the arresting officer.’ ( , ).” , -Judgment reversed.