Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Carrasco, 33 P.3d 791.

28 citing documents.

State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
A statute is unconstitutionally overbroad if “it prohibits or deters conduct protected by the First Amendment.” ¶ 14 (App. 2001) (citation omitted).
State v. Vaughan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vaughan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“A statute is unconstitutionally over broad when it prohibits or deters conduct protected by the First Amendment.” ¶ 14 (App. 2001).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Duplicity is a question of law we review de novo.” ¶ 5 (App. 2005) ( ¶ 10 (App. 2001), ¶ 6 (App. 1999)).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ohanlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ohanlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶3 The evidence presented at trial, which we view in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, ¶ 1, reveals the following.
State v. Barker 253 P.3d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Barker 253 P.3d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
avor of the defendant after a guilty verdict has been entered by the trier of fact.”); United States v. Genova, 333 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir.2003) (government’s appeal of post-trial acquittal is constitutionally permissible when new trial will not ensue, but rather, when reversal merely results in case being remanded for reinstatement of jury’s guilty verdict and for sentencing); , (reviewing for abuse of discretion trial court’s post-verdict grant of defendant’s renewed motion for judgment of acq
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Gross, 201 Ariz. 41, P.3d 791 (App. 2001).
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002