DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mungarro v. Riley, 826 P.2d 1215.

28 citing documents.

  • Abuhl v. Howell 135 P.3d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Abuhl v. Howell 135 P.3d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    ¶ 7 , we applied the Rothweiler test and held that false reporting is a jury-eligible offense.
  • State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
  • Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
    P.2d 54 (1972) (bottomless dancing); P.2d 48 (shoplifting); P.2d 1215 (App. 1991) (false reporting to law enforcement agency); Frederickson, P.2d 697 (leaving the scene of an accident).
  • Derendal v. Griffith 83 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Derendal v. Griffith 83 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 11 The term “moral turpitude” refers to conduct that is “depraved and inherently base” or to acts “that adversely reflect on one’s honesty, integrity, or personal values.” Frederickson, 187 Ariz. at 274 , 928 P.2d at 698 ( , ).
  • Raye v. Jones 76 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Raye v. Jones 76 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    (holding that penalty of six months in jail and $2500 fine for false reporting to a law officer did not trigger jury eligibility, but the moral turpitude of the offense did).
  • Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
  • Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
    8 , (liquor license suspension for selling liquor to minor not jury eligible where the penalty was less than six months and the maximum fine was $300 in 1980); O’ , (maximum penalty of six months and $300 fine for drunk and disorderly conduct in 1968 insufficient for jury eligibility); , (possible six-month prison sentence and $2500 fine did not make false reporting to a law officer jury eligible, though moral turpitude inherent in the offense justified jury trial).
  • State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (listing three factors used to determine a crime’s severity: (1) the harshness of the penalty, (2) the "moral turpitude” of the act, and (3) how the crime was traditionally tried under common law).
  • Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    “The term ‘moral turpitude’ describes conduct that is ‘depraved and inherently base’ or refers to ‘acts that adversely reflect on one’s honesty, integrity, or personal values.’ ”
  • Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (false reporting to a law enforcement agency is jury eligible because although not a common law crime and the penalty was not “serious,” the crime reflected on the defendant’s moral character).
  • State v. Superior Court 944 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Superior Court 944 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    More recently, this Court held that six months in jail and a $2,500 fine did not expose defendant to “severe penalty.” , (granting jury trial based on moral turpitude of false reporting to law enforcement agency); see also Miller, 172 Ariz. at 295 , 836 P.2d at 1005 (denying jury trial for charge of contracting without a license because, inter alia, six months in jail plus fine not sufficiently severe).
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 924 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 924 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Frederickson v. Superior Court 928 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Frederickson v. Superior Court 928 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    The term “moral turpitude” describes conduct which is “depraved and inherently base” or refers to “acts that adversely reflect on one’s honesty, integrity, or personal values.” , State ex rel.
  • State v. Miller 836 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Miller 836 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    a criminal defendant, while guaranteed the right to a jury trial under Ariz.Const.