DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

172 citing documents.

  • State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Steelman 585 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Steelman 585 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. DeCoe 578 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. DeCoe 578 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1978
    See North Carolina v. Alford, supra.
  • State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Lacquey 571 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Lacquey 571 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
    § 13—451(B); , , , cert.
  • State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
    the rule was stated that: “This test of legal insanity has two elements.
  • State v. Doyle 572 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Doyle 572 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    rden upon the state to prove appellant sane beyond a reasonable doubt, it was incumbent upon appellant to clearly prove that at the time of the commission of the act he “ ‘was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.’ ”
  • State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    Dr. Galbo would have testified that as a result of appellant’s “passive-dependent personality” he would follow virtually anyone who would take the lead, and that he “had no will to resist.” , does not apply to entrapment cases.
  • State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
    While the rule announced in State v. Begay supra, , permits a lay witness to testify as to his opinion of sanity, such witnesses may not base their opinions upon a different or lesser standard than that legally required of a defendant to rebut the presumption of sanity.
  • State v. Billhymer 561 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Billhymer 561 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Allen 557 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Allen 557 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    But if the field of the expert evidence is within.the exclusive province of specialists’ study, and outside the common knowledge of laymen, and if there is nothing intrinsic in the evidence to cast suspicion upon it, then the trier of fact may not arbitrarily reject it.” (Footnotes omitted)
  • State v. Brosie 553 P.2d 1203 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Brosie 553 P.2d 1203 Ariz. 1976
    144 , 42 L.Ed.2d 120 (1974); , cert.
  • State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ahumada 542 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ahumada 542 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Dante 541 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Dante 541 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    The state’s contention that counsel *153 for appellant was given wide latitude in this connection approaching a showing of diminished capacity due to addiction, deviating from the M’ , is borne out by the record.
  • State v. Moore 533 P.2d 663 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Moore 533 P.2d 663 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Cooper 529 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Cooper 529 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Karstetter 521 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Karstetter 521 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1974
    Twenty-five years later, , and we said: “There is an inference arising out of the failure of the State to call expert medical witnesses in rebuttal, that the defendant’s evidence as to insanity is true because uncontradicted.
  • State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
    § 13-451(B) A.R.S.; , ; , State v. Douglas, 2 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Everett 520 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Everett 520 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1974
    we held that one is relieved of criminal responsibility under the M’Naghten Rule only if there are defects of the perceptive and cognitive mental processes.
  • State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Durgin 517 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Durgin 517 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1974
    201 P. 91 (1921); , *253 (1965)