Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cota, 408 P.2d 23.

41 citing documents.

State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2556 (2015); ("A statute denies due process of law if it forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.").
Maricopa v. Rana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Maricopa v. Rana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A law is typically not unconstitutionally vague if its meaning may be ascertained “by common understanding and practices,” rather than “wholly subjective judgments without statutory definitions, narrowing context, or settled legal meanings,” see U.S. v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 306 (2008) (citing statutory criteria such as “annoyance” or “indecency”).
State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
That there will be marginal cases in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls is no sufficient reason to hold the language too ambiguous to define a criminal offense.” ( ).
State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
McLamb, 188 Ariz. at 5 , 932 P.2d at 270 ( , ).
State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, -59 , -35 (1977); , -37 , , 26 (1965).
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Jacobson 588 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Jacobson 588 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
That there will be marginal cases in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls is no sufficient reason to hold the language too ambiguous to define a criminal offense [Citation omitted].”
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Lindsay v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 564 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Lindsay v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 564 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Johnson v. Phoenix City Court 535 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Johnson v. Phoenix City Court 535 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Appellant Johnson contends that two phrases in the section are so vague as to render it unconstitutional; the phrases are “grossly indecent” and “which outrages de *65 cency and is injurious to or tends to corrupt morals.” We are of the opinion that the Arizona Supreme Court has decided the vagueness aspect of the phrase “grossly indecent act”
State v. Direct Sellers Association 494 P.2d 361 Ariz. 1972
State v. Direct Sellers Association 494 P.2d 361 Ariz. 1972
we said: “The Constitution only requires that language convey a sufficiently definite warning as to proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.
State v. MacKey 489 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. MacKey 489 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
1510 (1914); , 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 17 (1965).
Barbone v. Superior Court of Pima County 462 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Barbone v. Superior Court of Pima County 462 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Bowling, 5 Ariz.App.
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
594 , 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963)
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Bowling 427 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Bowling 427 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Phoenix v. Fine 420 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
City of Phoenix v. Fine 420 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966