Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo, 110 P.3d 1026.

44 citing documents.

State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See, -78 (1974) (“A conviction may be had on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix unless the story is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it.”); ¶ 3 (App. 2005) (holding that the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated, was enough to support defendant’s conviction).
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 13-1203(A)(3); ¶ 3 (App. 2005) (stating that testimony of a single witness is sufficient evidence to support a conviction, even if uncorroborated).
State of Arizona v. Nicolas Luviano 530 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Nicolas Luviano 530 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2023
¶¶ 7–9 (App. 2005) (applying Dixon in finding A.R.S.
State v. Hickey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hickey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
–78 (1974); ¶ 3 (App. 2005).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 3 (App. 2005) (resolving conflicts in testimony is the jury’s role).
State v. Dossey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dossey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 8 (App. 2005) (quotations omitted).
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Manzanedo , , ¶ 3, (jury resolves conflicts in evidence).
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
offense-through a statute like § 13-1802 that "defines a specific crime and provides ways in which the crime may be committed," State v. Dixon , , 561, , 508 (App. 1980) -we have commented, "[H]ad the legislature intended to create two separate offenses, it could easily have done so by enacting separate statutes or, at least, separate subsections," State v. Manzanedo , , ¶¶ 7, 9, , 1028 (App. 2005) (concluding A.R.S.
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
The two alternative means of violating § 13-2508 are not repugnant to each other because proof of one “does not disprove the other” and these acts could occur in the “same transaction.” ¶¶ 8–9 (App. 2005).
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶20 In determining whether a statute provides alternative means of committing the same offense, we must “ascertain and give effect to the intent of our legislature.”
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 8–9, (indicating that consistent or connected acts listed in a statute generally create a single offense that may be committed in different ways, and noting that the Legislature can readily indicate an intent to create multiple offenses “by
State v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining [the] convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against [the defendant].” ¶ 3, (citation omitted).
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arvallo 303 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Arvallo 303 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Bhatt 260 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bhatt 260 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Gamez 258 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Gamez 258 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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
He maintains “the principle of [ljenity would apply to [his] situation and double jeopardy would be a bar to two convictions.” The rule of lenity “dictates that any doubt about statutory construction be resolved in favor of a defendant,” , and thus “ ‘against taming a single transaction into multiple offenses,’ ” ,- quoting State v. Arndt, 87 Wash.2d 374
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
separate subsections.” Manzanedo, , 110 P.3d at 1028 .
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(jury resolves conflicts in evidence).