Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tamplin, 986 P.2d 914.

48 citing documents.

State v. McKinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McKinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Adam Douglas Haywood 550 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Adam Douglas Haywood 550 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In light of the large 1 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.” ¶ 2 (App. 1999).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against the [defendant].” ¶ 2 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 1999)).
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
He contends the instructions given were “in direct contradiction to the elements of the [GEI] affirmative defense,” –43 (1972) ¶ 4 (App. 1999), to explain what “wrong” means in the context of A.R.S.
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
manifested only by criminal conduct."); -49, ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (holding that "wrong" for an insanity defense is defined by community standards of morality and not personal beliefs).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Duplicity is a question of law we review de novo.” ¶ 5 (App. 2005) ( ¶ 10 (App. 2001), ¶ 6 (App. 1999)).
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Guardado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Guardado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Garcia-Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Garcia-Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 2, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Joann Bon 338 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Joann Bon 338 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.”
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Background ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.”
State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Background ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.”
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Nelson 150 P.3d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Nelson 150 P.3d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.”
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Heartfield 998 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Heartfield 998 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
we recently found that, because the legislature retained the second part of the M’Naghten test when it amended the statute in 1993, our supreme court’s definition of "wrong” in Corley is still viable.