Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Essman, 403 P.2d 540.

60 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Nicolas Luviano 530 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Nicolas Luviano 530 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2023
(explaining the merger doctrine), –14 ¶¶ 57–63 (2009).
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ariz.R.Crim.P, 26 (1956); -32 , (due process requires magistrate to allow defendant to present witnesses at a preliminary hearing) superseded by rule, Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lopez challenged the conviction, arguing that child abuse, like assault, cannot serve as a predicate felony because it merges into felony murder.
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
Felony Murder and the Merger Doctrine ¶57 P.2d 540 (1965), Moore also argues that under the merger doctrine, felony murder cannot be predicated upon a burglary that is itself based on the intent to murder.
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
¶ 29 Dann also argues that because he intended to murder Andrew rather than assault him, his conviction for the felony murder of Andrew violates the “merger doctrine”
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
D. Kidnapping Does Not Merge Into a , defendant argues that kidnapping merges into a subsequent murder and therefore may not be the basis for a felony murder conviction.
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
defendant argues that just as assault merged into a subsequent homicide and could not be used as a predicate for felony murder at common law, where there is a single victim, kidnapping merges into a subsequent homicide and cannot be used as a predicate for felony murder.
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
He relies instead on the doctrine of merger for which he cites State v. Ess-man, 98 Ariz. "228
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lewis 816 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Lewis 816 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
for the proposition that the felony murder doctrine does not apply where the underlying felony is an offense included in the charge of homicide.
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Note, Felony-Murder and Merger in Arizona, 17 Ariz.L.Rev.
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
(“The felony-murder doctrine does not apply where the felony is an offense included in the charge of homicide.
State v. Spoon 669 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1983
State v. Spoon 669 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1983
Since assault merges with the homicide itself, , the defendant contends that there was no felony “independent” of the resulting crime of murder.
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Miller 520 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1974
State v. Miller 520 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1974
State v. Cousino 500 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Cousino 500 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Stefanik 478 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1970
State v. Stefanik 478 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1970
State v. Von Reeden 450 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Von Reeden 450 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Pima County Superior Court 442 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1968
State v. Pima County Superior Court 442 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1968
We held, , , that: “ * * * Due process of law requires that an accused must be given a full hearing meeting the requirements of due process.
State v. Abbott 442 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1968
State v. Abbott 442 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1968
State v. Bradley 433 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1967
State v. Bradley 433 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1967
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 433 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 433 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Here the defendant has had a preliminary hearing, affording defense counsel “an opportunity to learn the nature of the prosecutor’s case.” ( , ) The defendant declined to testify, as was his right, a fact worthy of note, however, because it points up the one-sided nature of the subject discovery order.
McWilliams v. Justice Court, Tucson Precinct No. 1 424 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
McWilliams v. Justice Court, Tucson Precinct No. 1 424 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Branham 418 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Branham 418 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 169