Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sisk, 543 P.2d 1113.
- FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-
State v. Ochoa
943 P.2d 814
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“Expert testimony is evidence to be considered together with all of the facts and circumstances of the case, but the trier of fact remains free to make an independent analysis of the facts upon which the opinions of the experts rest.” -86 , -15 (1975).
- State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Cannon 618 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Cannon 618 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Steelman 585 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Steelman 585 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Fields 572 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
-
State v. Fields
572 P.2d 453
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
However, to rebut the presumption of a defendant’s sanity, which is recognized in all criminal cases, , , the defendant must introduce evidence which shows a state of mind which prohibited him from knowing the nature and quality of his act or that the act was wrong.
- State v. Ortiz 560 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Ortiz 560 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Tucker 557 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Tucker 557 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Allen 557 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
- State v. Allen 557 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
- State v. Scott 555 P.2d 1117 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Scott 555 P.2d 1117 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
-
State v. Noble
546 P.2d 1130
Ariz. 1976
After examining the instructions on insanity given to the jury by the court, we conclude that the jury was properly instructed in that regard.