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. Ganster, 433 P.2d 620.

51 citing documents.

  • State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    (“In a criminal case a trial judge is obliged to instruct the jury on his own motion upon the law relating to facts of that case and matters vital to a proper consideration of the evidence.”).
  • State v. Brown 556 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Brown 556 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See, (“unless failure to instruct the jury would fundamentally violate defendant’s right to a fair trial, the court is under no obligation to give the charge, absent a request”); (“generally the failure to give an instruction in the absence of a request for same is not error”); (similar); (similar).
  • City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Metcalf 775 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1989
  • City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Metcalf 775 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1989
    (credibility and weight to be given expert or opinion testimony is a jury question).
  • State v. Spinks 752 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Spinks 752 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Rule 21.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • State v. Dungan 718 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Dungan 718 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
  • State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
  • State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
    When determining criminal responsibility, , , the jury may consider voluntary intoxication not as a defense but as it relates to the ability to form specific intent.
  • State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    ‘The issue of criminal responsibility in Arizona has traditionally been a fact question for the jury.’
  • State v. Ortiz 560 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Ortiz 560 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Corrao 563 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Corrao 563 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Canaday 545 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Canaday 545 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Our Supreme Court has stated that “to constitute error the prejudice thereby caused must be of a fundamental nature which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.”
  • State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1975
    “The issue of criminal responsibility in Arizona has traditionally been a fact question for the jury.”
  • State v. Moore 533 P.2d 663 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Moore 533 P.2d 663 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Clemons 521 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Clemons 521 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1974
    For a few of the most recent cases so holding, , , , , , , ; State v. Chavez, 98 A
  • State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Evans 512 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Evans 512 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Corley 495 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Corley 495 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
    : “In a criminal case a trial judge is obliged to instruct the jury on his own motion upon the law relating to facts of that case and matters vital to a proper consideration of the evidence.
  • State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
    .” In the instant case counsel points out that Dr. Ruland diagnosed defendant as being “an emotionally unstable personality, passive-aggressive type, with symptomatic use of alcohol,” who at the time of the alleged offense was suffering from and in a state of pathological intoxication and that, in his [
  • State v. Cano 436 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1968