Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cutshaw, 437 P.2d 962.

41 citing documents.

State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Court of Phoenix, (guilt without mens rea "is allowed in certain cases, frequently involving the protection of children"); ("When a person does an act which reasonable persons should recognize will harm the health or morals of a youth, there is sufficient criminal intent to warrant conviction though the actor for good reason does not realize that the child is below the particular age selected by law as the threshold for crimin
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(“When the legislature has used a word to which it has given a prescribed definition, that definition should be followed by the courts.”).
State v. Slayton 154 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Slayton 154 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(stating “whether a statute condemns conduct, regardless of intent, is initially a problem of ascertaining the legislative intent”).
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(“[W]hether a statute condemns conduct, regardless of intent, is initially a problem of ascertaining the legislative intent.”).
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Parker 666 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Parker 666 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Spitz v. Municipal Court of City of Phoenix 621 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1980
Spitz v. Municipal Court of City of Phoenix 621 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1980
When a person does an act which reasonable persons should recognize will harm the health or morals of a youth, there is sufficient criminal intent to warrant conviction though the actor for good reason does not realize that the child is below the particular age selected by law as the threshold for criminal sanction, (citation omitted)” -221 , -73 (1968).
State v. Bailey 609 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Bailey 609 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
that the insufficiency of the information is a matter of fundamental error and demands reversal by this court.
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 , 71 S.Ct.
State v. Hagen 558 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Hagen 558 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Swafford 520 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Swafford 520 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Hixson 492 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Hixson 492 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Burrow 474 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Burrow 474 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Troutner, supra; , ; 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 91.
In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
State v. Lewis 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
Abbey v. City Court of City of Tucson 439 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Abbey v. City Court of City of Tucson 439 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
421 , (contributing case).”
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Compare Burdick, Law of Crime § 129, at 153; Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law, ch. Ill (2d ed. 1960); 1 Russell on Crime, at 31-36 (12th ed. Turner 1964); , note 13.