DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Thompson, 674 P.2d 895.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (“A statute is overbroad when its language, given its normal meaning, is so broad that sanctions may apply to conduct which the state is not entitled to regulate.”).
  • State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    (“It does make sense to require a person who drinks and drives to be responsible for not drinking to the point where he is under the influence of alcohol.
  • State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    violation of the constitutional right to a unanimous verdict would constitute fundamental error and could be raised for the first time on appeal.”); Klokic, 196 P.3d at 849 (discussing Davis; where possibility of nonunanimous verdict existed, “in the absence of appropriate curative measures by the trial court, such an error required reversal”); (“Since there are two separate crimes involved, it is clear that the jury’s verdict was void.
  • 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
    § 13-202(B); P.2d 895 (App. 1983).
  • State v. Phillips 873 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Phillips 873 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
  • State v. Martin 847 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Martin 847 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Although it is certainly within the legislature’s power to make criminal certain acts without regard to the actor’s intent, , it is conversely within our power to strike down as unconstitutional violations of due process those enactments which fail to give fair notice of the conduct that has been criminalized.
  • State v. Beckerman 814 P.2d 1388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Beckerman 814 P.2d 1388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    §§ 28-692(A)(B), 28-692.01, 13-701, 13-702, 13-801 and 13-803.” On the day of trial, the judge, , , dealing with duplicitous indictments, asked the state under which section of A.R.S.
  • State v. Acuna 710 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Acuna 710 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Because counts one and two of the indictment described alternative separate offenses, , , this case must be reversed.
  • State v. Lujan 677 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Lujan 677 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Fuenning v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983
  • Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983
  • Fuenning v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983
    Other cases, not cited in Alfaro , which hold the statute consti *595
  • Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983
    Other cases, not cited in Alfaro , which hold the statute constitutional *595