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. Turrentine, 730 P.2d 238.

42 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    that the actor be motivated by a ‘sexual interest’”); (sufficient evidence to support finding of sexual interest).
  • Washington v. Pellerito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Washington v. Pellerito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “[C]lear and convincing evidence is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    But “[w]e will not reverse simply because a better instruction could have been given.”
  • In Re Mh 2008-002596 219 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • In Re Mh 2008-002596 219 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    This standard is “proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.” State v. Cañez, ¶ 76 , ( , )
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    (“[A] ‘firm belief or conviction’ is truer to the clear and convincing standard____”) ( , (“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.”)).
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    .”) ( (“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.”)).
  • State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    (by raising issue of sanity and calling physicians to testify, defendant “necessarily opened the door to statements he had made to the physicians”).
  • State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (requiring defendant to prove insanity does not offend Arizona Due Process Clause).
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
    (holding that Rule 19.1(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, gives the trial court discretion whether to allow surrebuttal by defendant on the insanity defense).
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    er evidence adduced at trial satisfied the clear-and-convincing test); Terrazas, 189 Ariz. at 584 , 944 P.2d at 1198 (assessing whether evidence admitted under preponderance standard would have been admitted under clear-and-convincing standard); -23 , -43 (1988) ( , but preferring to define “clear and convincing” as “highly probable,” , ).
  • State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (error in admitting evidence already admitted to by defendant is essentially harmless).
  • State v. Jones 895 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Jones 895 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    In accepting the appellant’s argument, the supreme court referred to a , which defined clear and convincing evidence as “that ...
  • State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    We agree with Division Two’s , which held that it is up to the trial court’s discretion whether to allow surrebuttal argument when the defendant bears the burden of proof on insanity.
  • State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
  • In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
    We do not believe, however, that informing*the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a greater burden than proof by clear and convincing evidence cures an explicit instruction that at some length, and in minute detail, erroneously explains just what is meant by “clear and convincing.” In advancing its argument on this point
  • State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    a case in which a criminal defendant unsuccessfully claimed insanity, Division Two found that the trial court had incorrectly defined “clear and convincing evidence,” but that its definitional error did not require reversal.
  • State v. Leonardo 751 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Leonardo 751 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    This was, without regard to other circumstances, , noted in Renforth .
  • State v. Renforth 746 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Renforth 746 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    at 1808, 60 L.Ed.2d at 329
  • State v. Tallabas 746 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Tallabas 746 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Bowling 726 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Bowling 726 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986