Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schroeder, 389 P.2d 255.

101 citing documents.

State v. Allee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Allee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
However, “[t]he law does not require or even permit” instructions on lesser-included offenses based on the possibility “that the jury might simply disbelieve the state’s evidence on one element of the crime.”
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Action No. JS-8441, , (reinstating appeal on grounds of “fundamental fairness” when court procedures “not intuitively obvious to general users of the system”); , (observing that under certain circumstances, “dismissal for slight delay in filing criminal appeals seems inconsonant with sound policy and fundamental justice”).
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
at 637, 688 P.2d at 645 ( ).
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
The law does not require or even permit such a procedure.” , ( , ).
State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
See, e.g., Celaya, 135 Ariz. at 253 , 660 P.2d at 854 (“Where a defense theory is reasonably supported by the evidence, it is reversible error not to give [the lesser included offense instruction]____”) (emphasis added); , (lesser included offense instructions are justified only when evidence exists upon which the jury could convict defendant of a lesser offense).
State v. Felix 737 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Felix 737 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Caldera 688 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1984
State v. Caldera 688 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1984
State v. Yarbrough 638 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Yarbrough 638 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Dugan 608 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1980
State v. Dugan 608 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1980
State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
For in these cases, if the jury accepts defendant’s version of the [crime], they must acquit; if not, and the state’s proof is otherwise sufficient, the only alternative is conviction of the offense charged.”
State v. Robin 562 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Robin 562 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Parra 558 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Parra 558 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Toney 555 P.2d 650 Ariz. 1976
State v. Toney 555 P.2d 650 Ariz. 1976
State v. Wilson 555 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1976
State v. Wilson 555 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1976
State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
“ ‘Deliberation’ connotes an intentional killing.”
State v. Taintor 540 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Taintor 540 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Swafford, 21 Ariz.App.
State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-75755 521 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Swafford 520 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Swafford 520 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
State v. Evans 519 P.2d 182 Ariz. 1974
State v. Evans 519 P.2d 182 Ariz. 1974
State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
State v. Schmid 509 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1973