DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Contreras, 481 P.2d 861.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Moering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Moering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (holding that "speculation alone, without corroboration, is not sufficient" to receive lesser-included instruction).
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
    Although “assault and battery are always included in an unlawful homicide, they are not degrees of such offense requiring the court where death results to instruct that the defendant may be found guilty thereof.” , (-08 , ); , (holding in first degree murder case that “[wjhere the victim of an assault dies as a result of that assault, the trial court is not required t
  • State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Moreno 625 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Moreno 625 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
    While the language therein does not comport with the language we have approved previously, , , , , different phraseology alone is insufficient to constitute reversible error.
  • State v. Dailey 596 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Dailey 596 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
    The trial court, therefore, properly instructed the jury as to the possible verdict of manslaughter.” -70
  • State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
    § 13-132; , , ); therefore the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that similar treatment be given to mental illness and specific intent.
  • State v. Toney 555 P.2d 650 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Toney 555 P.2d 650 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Salazar 539 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Salazar 539 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Boyles 537 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Boyles 537 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1975
    Such an instruction is proper where “there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s state of intoxication at the time of the [crime] * * * to present a question of fact for the jury as to whether defendant was capable of entertaining a [specific intent] * * * required for conviction.”
  • State v. Cooper 529 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Cooper 529 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Gonzales 523 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Gonzales 523 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Duke 518 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Duke 518 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Durgin 517 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Durgin 517 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1974
    Evidence of intoxication at the time of the crime, whether by alcohol or other drugs, is admissible to show lack of specific criminal intent, § 13 — 132 A.R.S.
  • State v. Fimbres 510 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Fimbres 510 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    on of his having been in such condition, but when the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute any particular crime or degree of *67 crime, you may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act.” See ARS § 13-132; , State v. Bridges, 12 Ariz.App.