Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Berry, 419 P.2d 337.

94 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
at 656; (molestation victim’s inability to recall details like date and time goes to credibility, an issue for the jury, and such testimony insufficient grounds 6 STATE v. COPELAND Opinion of the Court for fatal vari
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
The court of appeals, Holle, 238 Ariz. at 223 ¶ 15, 225 ¶ 22, 358 P.3d at 644, 646 , like our partially dissenting colleagues, infra ¶55
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
The court of appeals, Holle, 238 Ariz. at 223 ¶ 15, 225 ¶ 22, 358 P.3d at 644, 646, like our partially dissenting colleagues, infra ¶ 55, P.2d 337 (1966).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
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
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(primary goal of statutory interpretation is to determine and give effect to the legislative intent behind the statute); , (statute to be construed according to evil it is designed to remedy).
Lowry v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1999
Lowry v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1999
at 363 , 641 P.2d at 851 ( , ).
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Crisp 855 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Crisp 855 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Wiley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 847 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1993
Wiley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 847 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1993
3 “Statutes which are ambiguous must be construed in view of the purposes they are intended to accomplish and the evils they are designed to remedy.” Senor T’s Restaurant, 131 Ariz. at 363 , 641 P.2d at 851 ( , ); accord St.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-121430 838 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-121430 838 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, , Stinson, supra; , Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, supra.
Martinez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 812 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Martinez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 812 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
(statutes must be construed in view of the purpose they are intended to accomplish and the evils they are designed to remedy).
In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Madsen 667 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Madsen 667 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Arizona courts have also interpreted the term “molest” to mean that the forbidden acts are “motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest with respect to children.”
Senor T's Restaurant v. Industrial Commission 641 P.2d 848 Ariz. 1982
Senor T's Restaurant v. Industrial Commission 641 P.2d 848 Ariz. 1982
State v. Anderson 623 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Anderson 623 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
§ 13-1410 or that the touching was “motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest or intent with respect to children”
State v. Rivera 624 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Rivera 624 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
They also raised but do not argue a “Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury.”
State v. Roberts 612 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1980
State v. Roberts 612 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1980
State v. Dishong 594 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1979
State v. Dishong 594 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1979
State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
State v. Brooks 586 P.2d 1270 Ariz. 1978
State v. Brooks 586 P.2d 1270 Ariz. 1978
An essential element of the offense of child molestation under § 13-653 is that the acts involved be “motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest or intent with respect to children.”
State v. Jackson 603 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Jackson 603 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
which contained as an additional element: “[wjhere said fondling, playing or touching is caused by unnatural or abnormal sexual interest or intentions with respect to children.” Appellant, in objecting to the refusal of the instruction and on appeal, relies on the supreme court’s