Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schantz, 403 P.2d 521.

172 citing documents.

Carlos Cruz v. Hon. blair/state of Arizona 532 P.3d 327 Ariz. 2023
Carlos Cruz v. Hon. blair/state of Arizona 532 P.3d 327 Ariz. 2023
BLAIR/STATE Opinion of the Court ¶17 We have continually reaffirmed that “[t]he legislature has not provided for, and this Court has refused to allow, an affirmative defense of diminished capacity.” ¶ 20 (2015); 212–13 (1965) (considering and rejecting defense of diminished capacity and noting the legislature “has not recognized a disease or defect of mind in which volition does not exist .
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
JUSTICE TIMMER, opinion of the Court: ¶1 Although a defendant cannot use evidence of a mental disease or defect to show he did not form a crime’s requisite mental state (mens rea), –13 (1965), he may use evidence of a character trait for impulsivity to cast doubt on the existence of premeditation, which forms part of the mens rea for first degree murder under A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter 424 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter 424 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2018
The Court noted that it previously “considered and rejected the defense of diminished capacity” and recognized that “the legislature is responsible for promulgating the criminal law.” Id.
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
-41, 544 , -51, 1054 (1997); -13
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
¶18 On the other hand, “[w]hen reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.” P.2d at 1272
Phillips v. Araneta 93 P.3d 480 Ariz. 2004
Phillips v. Araneta 93 P.3d 480 Ariz. 2004
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
See, -41, -51 (1997) (legislature decides whether “to adopt the defense of diminished capacity” and the “Court does not have the authority” to do so), -13, Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 24(a), at 86 (1984) (“Legislatures refine basic [justification] principle[s] to provide in each case a suitable justification defense .
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
Matter of Hoover 745 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1987
Matter of Hoover 745 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1987
State v. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The court rejected the contention that such evidence in effect raised a “diminished responsibility” defense, , cert.
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chavez 693 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
State v. Gretzler 659 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Gretzler 659 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
See Steelman I, supra, 120 Ariz. at 311-13, 585 P.2d at 1223-25 ; , cert.
State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Followed State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
cert, denied 382 U.S. 1015 , 86 S.Ct.
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
On the other hand, “where the trial judge has a conscientious conviction that all the elements of an offense have not been established beyond a reasonable doubt * * * he has not only the right but the duty to direct a verdict of acquittal.”
State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
Since the fruits of such an investigation would not be admissible to prove lack of specific intent, , cert.
State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978