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. Ganster 433 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Ganster 433 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Bradley 433 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1967
  • Followed State v. Bradley 433 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Schantz 427 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Schantz 427 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1967
    We affirmed the judgment
  • State v. Martin 426 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Martin 426 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1967
    we said that once “insanity is an issue, the burden of the state is to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the converse.” We believe the position taken by us in State v. Schantz, which is supported by a number of other jurisdictions, People v. Tobin, 176 N.Y.
  • State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
    this court reaffirmed its adherence to what is known as the Rule of M’Naghten’s Case as the test of criminal insanity and refused to allow a defense based on a mental derangement lesser than, or distinguishable from, the M’Naghten Rule, which Arizona has consistently followed.
  • State v. Janovic 417 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Janovic 417 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
    The defense of “partial irresponsibility” , .
  • State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Conrad 405 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Conrad 405 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1965
    completely disposes of the issue before us. We rejected the Model Penal Code’s interpretation of criminal responsibility and reaffirmed adherence to the M’Naghten Rules: “ * * * Whatever may be the theoretical merits in the medical evaluation of the volitional aspects of the human mind, we
  • State v. LeVar 403 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. LeVar 403 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1965
    He shows certain traits, as I say, of immaturity, which in my opinion are an arrest and coiling up of what instincts and developmental traits the ordinary person goes ahead and develops.” On the basis of this testimony the defense requested an instruction on “partial insanity” , .