Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Church, 504 P.2d 940.

50 citing documents.

Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
¶ 16 (App. 1999) (deciding constitutional issue because the issue was “intertwined” with non-constitutional issue and citing Church for the proposition that the “fact that constitutional and non-constitutional issues are interwoven justifies addressing all issues
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(fact that constitutional and non-constitutional issues are interwoven justifies addressing all issues).
Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
§ 23-1023 [1-3] We “usually will not determine the constitutionality of a statute when the case can be decided without ruling upon such question.”
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Pendley v. Mingus Union High School District No. 4, , , vacated
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
§ 13-249 are applicable to assaults committed while the defendant was armed *427 with a gun or deadly weapon which is “inherently dangerous.”
State v. Gutierrez 634 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1981
State v. Gutierrez 634 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1981
State v. Church, [ , ]; State v. Herkshan, [ , ].
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 635 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 635 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Nunez v. Arizona Mill Co., 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Martinez 622 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
State v. Martinez 622 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
State v. Church, [ , ]; State v. Herkshan, [ , ].
State v. Bly 621 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1980
State v. Bly 621 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1980
State v. Barnes 606 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1980
State v. Barnes 606 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1980
-43 , -4 (1973), we examined the term “deadly weapon” as used in subsection B of A.R.S.
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1979
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1979
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1163 Ariz. 1978
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1163 Ariz. 1978
we examined the difference between the term “deadly weapon” as utilized in both subsections A and B of the statute.
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The fact that an assault with a deadly weapon is proscribed by both subsections of § 13-249
State v. Moss 579 P.2d 42 Ariz. 1978
State v. Moss 579 P.2d 42 Ariz. 1978
appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by submitting to the jury the issue of whether a deadly weapon was used in the battery.
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Corrao 563 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Corrao 563 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
our Supreme Court held that subsection (B) was not unconstitutionally vague merely because it used the same words, “deadly weapon”, as used in subsection (A).
State v. Grange 543 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Grange 543 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
As amended Laws 1967, Ch. 62, § 3.” Subsection (B) of the foregoing, statute was added by the Legislature in 1967 for the purpose of increasing punishment for one who commits an assault while armed with a deadly weapon of the type like a gun which has the potential of inflicting death
State v. Adrian 538 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Adrian 538 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
ubsection B. 1 Because both subsections use the words “deadly weapon” the defendant states that the statute is ambiguous concerning the sentence to be imposed under the facts of this case and therefore the matter should be remanded for resentencing under subsection A. The Supreme Court of this state has recently discussed the issue presented by defendant in two separate opinions:
State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
State v. Castaneda 528 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1974
State v. Castaneda 528 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1974
As amended Laws 1967, Ch. 62, § 3.” , we stated that a knife is a deadly weapon, and the specific statute, § 13-249(A) and (B), has been upheld against an attack that it was unconstitutionally vague, see
State v. Durgin 517 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1974
State v. Durgin 517 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1974
Defendant Durgin and a codefendant, Richard Church ( , [1973]), were negotiating with two undercover agents of the Tucson Police Department to sell to the agents some 200 kilos of marijuana.
State v. Bettis 514 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1973
State v. Bettis 514 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1973
State v. Darling 506 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1973
State v. Darling 506 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1973