Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin, 310 P.3d 990.

74 citing documents.

State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brown v. Jcl Network Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brown v. Jcl Network Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 6, (citation omitted); McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 16
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
We generally review the trial court’s decisions regarding verdict forms for an abuse of discretion,1 -99 (App. 2013), and where, as here, no objection was made to the allegedly duplicitous indictment before trial, we review for fundamental, prejudicial error, -63 (2013).
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bibbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bibbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 38 (App. 2013) (explaining that “[g]enerally, an allegation of dangerousness must be found by a jury,” “[h]owever, a jury need not make a finding of dangerousness where it is inherent in the crime.”) (internal quotations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
See Flores, ¶¶ 7-8, 335 P.3d at 557; see also Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303-04 (court may not enhance sentence if “additional findings” outside of verdicts required); -01 (App. 2013) (courts look to statutes defining offense, the indictment, and “whether ‘an element of the offense charged contains an allegation and requires proof’ of dangerousness” when determining if dangerousness inherent in offense)
State v. Eldridge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Eldridge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 18 (App. 2013); ¶ 18 (App. 2004) (conviction of arson of an occupied structure required proof that fire was dangerous).
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 38 (App. 2013); Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(no error where evidence did not support lesser-included offense instruction).10 8 Because Veloz took less than $1,000 in property, any shoplifting charge pursuant to A.R.S.
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
We review the court’s denial of a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, , and will not reverse its decision “absent a clear abuse of that discretion and resulting prejudice,”