Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Spitz v. Municipal Court of City of Phoenix, 621 P.2d 911.

36 citing documents.

State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Court of Phoenix, (guilt without mens rea "is allowed in certain cases, frequently involving the protection of children"); ("When a person does an act which reasonable persons should recognize will harm the health or morals of a youth, there is sufficient criminal intent to war
State v. Slayton 154 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Slayton 154 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
Court, (noting the federal rule that a jury is not required when the punishment is no more than six months incarceration and holding that “an additional sanction, such as suspension of [a] liquor license .
Derendal v. Griffith 83 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Derendal v. Griffith 83 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
(maximum six-month sentence and $1000 fine in 1980 did not establish severe penalty for disorderly conduct); , (liquor license suspension for selling liquor to minor not jury eligible where the penalty was less than six months and the maximum fine was $300 in 1980); O’ , (maximum penalty of six months and $300 fine for drunk and disorde
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Our supreme court rejected a
Benitez v. Dunevant 979 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Benitez v. Dunevant 979 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
held that selling liquor to a minor was not a juiy-eligible offense, even though conviction could result in the defendant losing his liquor license.
Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(a defendant charged with misdemeanor sale of liquor to a minor, subject to a maximum of up to six months in jail and a fine of $300, was not entitled to a jury); , rev.d in part on other grounds, , (198
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See, , (holding that the general rule is that state must demonstrate some degree of wrongful intent in criminal cases); , (stating that requirement of mens rea in criminal cases is rule rather than exception).
Matter of Marquardt 778 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
State Ex Rel. Dean v. Dolny 778 P.2d 1193 Ariz. 1989
State v. Richey 762 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Richey 762 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See, e.g., Baumert, 127 Ariz. at 154 , 618 P.2d at 1080 (disorderly conduct); , (sale of alcoholic beverages to minors); , (simple assault and battery); O’Neill, 103 Ariz. at 485 , 445 P.2d at 844 (drunken and disorderly conduct).
State v. Jennings 722 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1986
State v. Jennings 722 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1986
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
State v. Frey 686 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Frey 686 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of Tucson 687 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of Tucson 687 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Brannigan v. Raybuck 667 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1983
Brannigan v. Raybuck 667 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1983