Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jackson, 382 P.2d 229.

35 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. John Logan Brown Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. John Logan Brown Ariz. 2025
Rather, we agree that allowing Brown to assert a justification defense based on his ability to exclude others from his bedroom aligns with the Legislature’s intent to protect individuals in their private living space and our interpretation also gives effect to what we have recognized as “the fundamental right of self-defense.”
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(specific acts of known prior violence by victim admissible to show defendant’s state of mind and that decedent was of a violent and turbulent disposition); -21 , -32 (1963) (specific acts of prior violence by victim admissible if known by defendant to show defendant’s state of mind); , (specific instances of prior violence known by defendant admissible to show state of mind).
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See, e.g., Taylor, 169 Ariz. at 121 , 817 P.2d at 488 , , , , 229 P. 1032, 1034 (1924) (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also Williams, 141 Ariz. at 130, 685 P.2d at 767; Zamora, 140 Ariz. at 340-41 , 681 P.2d at 923-24 .
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
See, , , , 229 P. 1032, 1033 (1924)
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Williams 685 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Williams 685 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Zamora 681 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Zamora 681 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Earby 665 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Earby 665 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Palomarez 657 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Palomarez 657 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
controls this issue and stands for the proposition that when a defendant claims self-defense, the jury should have been instructed that a person who is in a place where he has a right to be is not required to retreat but may defend himself with deadly force in order to avoid great bodily harm.
State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
In addition, , : “You have been instructed that a person who is without fault has no duty to retreat; however, if you find that such person did in fact retreat and further if you find that such person did in fact reach a place of safety, and further if you find that such person did then voluntarily return to the
State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
State v. Ross 633 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Ross 633 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
A Defendant may only use or threaten to use deadly physical force in self-defense to protect himself from another’s use or threatened use of deadly physical force.” The right to stand one’s
State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Jackson, 94 Ariz. *63 117, Mendez v. State, supra.
State v. Belcher 514 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1973
State v. Belcher 514 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1973
State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
State v. Barker 385 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1963
State v. Barker 385 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1963
The trial court should exercise caution in not emphasizing a particular part of a case out of proportion to the whole, State v. Jackson , .