Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. O'BRIEN, 601 P.2d 341.

57 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Vergara argues § 13-107(E) “constitutes a repeal” of “the seven-year limitation for all class two serious offenses where identity was unknown.” ¶41 “Legislatures are presumed to enact statutes compatible with existing legislation.” State v. O’Brien
Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
.”); (“Although arising out of one act, the statutes describe two separate and distinct offenses.”); –08 (1968) (holding criminal statutes merely prohibiting the same conduct did not conflict where there was no positive repugnancy between the two laws); State v. O’Brien, –84 (App. 1979) (“A specific statute does not supplant an earlier general statute unless all provisions are covered; that is, where the specific statute is narrower, the general one is not repealed.
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Mark Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Mark Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
see, e.g., State v. Far W. Water & Sewer, Inc., State v. O’Brien
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
A charge is not “duplicitous merely because it charges alternate ways of violating the same statute.” State v. O’Brien
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
However, “[a] count is not considered duplicitous merely because it charges alternate ways of violating the same statute.” State v. O’Brien
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See State v. O’Brien, , (“Multiplicity is defined as charging a single offense in multiple counts, whereas duplicity is charging multiple offenses in a single count.”).
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
f the accusation in order that he may meet it and prepare for trial, and after judgment, be able to plead the record and judgment in bar of a further prosecution for the same offense”); (defendant has fundamental right to reasonable notice of specific charge); State v. O’Brien, (duplicitous charges prohibited in order to give defendant notice and to avoid “consequences of the inability of the jury to indicate which way they are voting on each of the charges”).
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
§ 32-749 (2002) (privilege for information acquired by accountants); State v. O’Brien, , (holding that the accountant-client privilege does not apply to criminal prosecutions).
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
see also United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2nd Cir.1999).
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
In State v. O’Brien, , duplicity was defined as “charging multiple offenses in a single count.” The court of appeals continued that “a count is not considered duplicitous merely because it charges alternate ways of violating the same statute.” Id.
State v. Rendon 776 P.2d 353 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rendon 776 P.2d 353 Ariz. 1989
(arson); , (trafficking in stolen property); State v. O’Brien, , (conspiracy); , (assault with a deadly weapon); State v. Goodman, 22 Ariz.App.
State v. Taylor 773 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1989
State v. Taylor 773 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1989
aff'd., , State v. O’Brien
State v. Sommer 745 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Sommer 745 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. O’Brien, , see also Fern, 696 F.2d at 1274 .
State v. Williams 742 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1987
State v. Williams 742 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1987
(arson); , (trafficking in stolen property); State v. O’Brien, , (conspiracy); , (assault with a deadly weapon); State v. Goodman, 22 Ariz.App.
State v. Kelly 716 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Kelly 716 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
545 (1927); Spencer v. Coconino County Superior Court, Division 3, , State v. O’Brien
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Spencer v. COCONINO CTY. SUPER. CT., DIV. 3 667 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1983
Spencer v. Coconino County Superior Court 667 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1983
Spencer v. COCONINO CTY. SUPER. CT., DIV. 3 667 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1983
Spencer v. Coconino County Superior Court 667 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1983
545 (1927); State v. O’Brien
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. O’Brien, , 17 A.R.S.
State v. Barber 653 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Barber 653 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
State v. O’Brien, , 17 A.R.S.
State v. Bruni 630 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981