Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Corley, 495 P.2d 470.
- 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. Heartfield 998 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
-
State v. Heartfield
998 P.2d 1080
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(“a person’s knowledge that his act is ‘wrong,’ as such term is used ...
- State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
-
State v. Tamplin
986 P.2d 914
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
and the final sentence quotes A.R.S.
- State v. Roberts 673 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
-
State v. Roberts
673 P.2d 974
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
the court held that it would have been an invasion of the jury’s province if the court had instructed, “[t]here is an inference arising out of the failure of the State to call expert medical witnesses ...” because, in that form, the instruction told the jury they were required to make the infere
- Globe American Casualty Co. v. Lyons 641 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- Globe American Casualty Co. v. Lyons 641 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Rodriquez 555 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1976
-
State v. Rodriquez
555 P.2d 655
Ariz. 1976
As we have previously said, “Defendant made a strategic decision ., a voluntary act, which in no way infringed his right of privilege against self-incrimination.”
- State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Moore 533 P.2d 663 Ariz. 1975
-
State v. Moore
533 P.2d 663
Ariz. 1975
Defendant’s evidence, therefore, the law provides that there is an inference raised that the Defendant’s evidence as to his insanity at the time he committed the act is true.”
- State v. Moore 529 P.2d 1172 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Moore 529 P.2d 1172 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Karstetter 521 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Karstetter 521 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1974
- State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Richardson 514 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1973
-
State v. Richardson
514 P.2d 1236
Ariz. 1973
Since then we have expressly reaffirmed our position as stated in Schantz, supra