Cited by

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

172 citing documents.

State v. Begay 516 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1973
State v. Begay 516 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1973
that in order for the accused to be relieved of criminal responsibility : “An accused must have had at the time of the commission of the criminal act: (1) Such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or (2) If he did know, that he did not know he was doing
State v. Richardson 514 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1973
State v. Richardson 514 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1973
State v. Byrd 509 P.2d 1034 Ariz. 1973
State v. Byrd 509 P.2d 1034 Ariz. 1973
State v. Parker 505 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Parker 505 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Begay 504 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Begay 504 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Russell 503 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1972
State v. Russell 503 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1972
State v. Corley 495 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1972
State v. Corley 495 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1972
State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
State v. Shannon 478 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1970
State v. Shannon 478 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1970
The court in the majority opinion in Malumphy pointed out that this court had consistently adhered to the M’Naghten Rule, , which sets forth the rule as follows: “This test of legal insanity has two elements.
State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
at 172 , at 605 (1966); at 206 , at 524 (1965), cert.
State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
The concepts of malice and justification are necessarily interrelated, as we have previously defined malice as “the intent to kill without legal justification.” at 172 , at 605 (1966); at 206 , at 524 (1965), cert.
State v. Shaw 471 P.2d 715 Ariz. 1970
State v. Shaw 471 P.2d 715 Ariz. 1970
The test of legal insanity, as held by this Court, has two elements— “(1) Such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or “(2) If he did know, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” , , cert.
State v. Malumphy 461 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1969
State v. Malumphy 461 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1969
State v. Wahrlich 459 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1969
State v. Wahrlich 459 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1969
State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Crow 457 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1969
State v. Crow 457 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1969
Defendant further states that this Court should reconsider the decision that a defendant cannot be shown unable to form a requisite intent, , , and should hold that the requested instruction in this regard should have been given.
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Von Reeden 454 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1969
State v. Von Reeden 454 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1969
If by the defendant’s mental condition is meant a specific defect or disorder then the argument has been rejected by this *406
State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
supports his argument that the trial court erred in not granting the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
we held that where insanity is an issue the burden is upon the State “to establish beyond a reasonable doubt” the converse.
State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Superior Court in and for Co. of Maricopa 441 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1968
State v. Superior Court in and for Co. of Maricopa 441 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1968
Indeed, , , we said: “ * * * 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.” In the case before us, however, the trial judge reserved
State v. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
State v. Cano 436 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1968
State v. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
136 P. 276 ; People v. McRoberts, 1 Cal.App.
State v. Cano 436 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1968
403 P.2d *41 521, this court set forth defendant’s duty in this respect as follows: “ ‘[T]o establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know