Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Korovkin, 47 P.3d 1131.

30 citing documents.

State v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Murphy-Logue v. Hon. steinlage/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Murphy-Logue v. Hon. steinlage/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶29 Although the word “involved” is not defined in Title 28, we have defined “involve” according to its ordinary meaning as “entangle,” “implicate,” or “draw in as a participant.” ¶ 15 (App. 2002) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1191 (1971)).
State v. Ocain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Ocain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 13-301(2), (3); ¶ 16 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 12 (App. 2002)) ("the state may base a defendant's criminal liability for a substantive criminal offense on an accomplice theory if the state is able to show the defendant aided or facilitated the commission of that offense by a principal").
State v. Bustos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bustos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Thus, the State may prove a “defendant’s criminal liability for a substantive criminal offense” by showing the defendant aided “the commission of that offense by a principal.” ¶ 12 (App. 2002).
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 45 (2003) (the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor did not engage in intentional misconduct was not “clearly erroneous”); (“Appellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact is limited to a determination whether those findings are clearly erroneous.”); ¶ 8 (App. 2002) (“We defer to the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor’s comment here, if improper, was not intentionally so.”).
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶19 To resolve the claim that the trial court erred by denying the double jeopardy motion to bar the retrial, “[w]e review a trial court’s decision whether to dismiss a prosecution with prejudice under [Pool] for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 5, (citation omitted); (noting that “[a]ppellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact is limited to a determination of whether those findings are 2 Hollingsworth does not appeal his conviction for misdemean
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
§ 13-230 1(D)(4)(b)(xxvi); ¶ 15 , (using dictionary definition of "involve”— " 'entangle, [or] implicate’ and ‘to draw in as a participant' ” — to hold driver who raced second driver until second driver collided with another vehicle was "involved” in that accident and guilty of leaving the scene of an acciden
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Thus, “[t]he state may base a defendant‟s criminal liability for a substantive criminal offense on an accomplice theory if the state is able to show the defendant aided or facilitated the commission of that offense by a principal.” State v. Korovkin, 202 Ariz. 493, ¶ 12, citing A.R.S.
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
[or provides means or opportunity to another person to commit the offense.” Thus, “[t]he state may *327 base a defendant’s criminal liability for a substantive criminal offense on an accomplice theory if the state is able to show the defendant aided or facilitated the commission of that offense by a principal.” , citing A.R.S.
State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Sharma 165 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
*523 (1995) (“Motions for mistrial based on prose-cutorial misconduct are committed to the trial court’s discretion, which will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly abused.”); , (appellate court defers to trial court’s findings of fact related to prosecutorial misconduct).
Kromko v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Kromko v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Korovkin,, , , (App.,2002) .