Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Zakhar, 459 P.2d 83.

72 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
-33 (1969) (Arizona law permits inconsistent verdicts); (same).
State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Nolte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nolte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“That Appellant was acquitted on forgery counts .
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-33 (1969); ¶ 10 (App. 2013)
State v. Wyninger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wyninger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[C]onsistency between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment is unnecessary.” ¶ 25 (2001) (“Well-settled Arizona law permits inconsistent verdicts.”).
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hansen, 237 Ariz. at 67-68, ¶ 19.
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
e.g., Webb, 186 Ariz. at 561 , 925 P.2d at 702 (defendant acquitted of felony DUI but convicted of DUI and driving without license); -16 , -77 (App.1992) (defendant convicted of aggravated assault with deadly weapon, but crime found not t
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
("in most jurisdictions the rule is that consistency between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment is unnecessary”); , ("there is no constitutional requirement that verdicts be consistent”); Eldredge v. Mill
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(explaining juries sometimes compromise or exercise leniency when reaching their verdicts); , (courts will not speculate on reasons for juiy's verdict).
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
§§ 13-1203(A), 13-1204(A)(1); -33 , -85 (1969) (acquittal of assault charge may have been result of jury compromise).
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
But — as Lemke acknowledges — “consistency between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment is unnecessary.”
Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
Gusler v. Wilkinson 18 P.3d 702 Ariz. 2001
Gusler v. Wilkinson 18 P.3d 702 Ariz. 2001
(“consistency between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment is unnecessary”).
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Thus, the cases the State cites, , , are not directly on point.
State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
-33 , -85 (1969) (consistency unnecessary; inconsistent verdicts may be result of leniency); , (“there is no constitutional requirement that verdicts be consistent.”); -16 , -77 (App.
State v. Panveno 996 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Panveno 996 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Adams 941 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Adams 941 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Parsons 827 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Parsons 827 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Although acknowledging that Arizona courts have not required consistency in verdicts, , appellant distinguishes this case because it involves a special verdict on an element of the offense as opposed to inconsistent verdicts on different counts of the same indictment.
State v. Bravo 829 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Bravo 829 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991