Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McKinney, 501 P.2d 378.

59 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray 372 P.3d 999 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray 372 P.3d 999 Ariz. 2016
holding that “[a] defendant who wishes to avail himself of a defense of entrapment must admit the substantial elements of the crime and one who denies knowledge of the crime may not raise the defense of entrapment.” McKinney further described the requirements for a valid entrapment cla
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray 357 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray 357 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
It required that a defendant “must admit the substantial elements of the crime and one who denies knowledge of the crime may not raise the defense of entrapment.”
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
1637 , 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973)
State v. Rocha-Rocha 935 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Rocha-Rocha 935 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See, e.g., United States v. Robison, 644 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir.1981) (Once a defendant establishes the appearance of vindictive prosecution, the prosecu-lion bears the burden of proof sufficient to dispel appearance of vindictiveness.); , (Entrapment is an affirmative defense; however, once the issue is raised by the defendant, the State has the burden of proof.); , (Defendant is only required to raise reasonable doubt as to defense of justification and State is then required t
State v. Cramer 851 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Cramer 851 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Soule 811 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1991
State v. Soule 811 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1991
(a defendant who wishes to utilize the entrapment defense must admit substantial elements of the crime and one who denies knowledge of the crime may not raise the entrapment defense); , (to claim entrapment defense, defendant must admit offense cha
State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Boccelli, supra; State v. Mack, supra.
State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Denial of Directed Verdict The appellant attempts to bring this case within the “entrapment as a matter of law”
State v. Cornejo 677 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Cornejo 677 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Nilsen 657 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1983
State v. Nilsen 657 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1983
State v. MacK 654 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. MacK 654 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
appellant argues that because Nanez was not produced as a witness, the state failed to rebut his defense of entrapment and therefore he was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of entrapment as a matter of law.
State v. Nilsen 657 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Nilsen 657 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Rodriguez 609 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Rodriguez 609 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
and State v. Vitale, 23 Ariz.App.
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
United States v. Martinez, 429 F.2d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 1970).
State v. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
State v. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
Defendant cites State v. *17 Boccelli, , , wherein we held that entrapment is established where there is un-contradicted evidence that the illegal drug was supplied by the government or its agents.
State v. Quinonez 580 P.2d 346 Ariz. 1978
State v. Quinonez 580 P.2d 346 Ariz. 1978
I left in one car in which I took the money for and we left and I got dropped off at a bar and I was, then I called, I was told to call them and tell them or something about the price that could be arranged lower or something like that, then I was picked up an hour later and brought back with the rest of the stuff.” , applies to his case.
State v. Bean 581 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Bean 581 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Montano 571 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Montano 571 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Rubino 531 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Rubino 531 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
the Arizo *145 na Supreme Court discussed the entrapment defense: “ * * * In order to have a valid claim of entrapment, ‘there has to exist activity by the State in the nature of an inducement to commit a crime which the accused would not have otherwise committed, although providing the mere opp
State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
the following comment is made regarding the defense of entrapment: “A defendant who wishes to avail himself of a defense of entrapment must admit the substantial elements of the crime and one who denies knowledge of the crime may not raise the defense of entrapment.
State v. Cox 522 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1974
State v. Cox 522 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1974
He bases that contention on the “fact” that the informant Whitney “supplied” the marijuana
State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
to support his claim that entrapment was established as a matter of law.