Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 542 P.2d 808.

25 citing documents.

Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Julio L., 3 P.3d at 385; 2 ¶9 Furthermore, in Miranda, our supreme court held that a person cannot place a victim in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury without also disturbing the victim’s peace.
In Re JULIO L 3 P.3d 383 Ariz. 2000
In Re JULIO L 3 P.3d 383 Ariz. 2000
B. Proof of Whose Peace was Disturbed ¶ 8 , the court of appeals stated that “evidence of actual disturbance is not required.” Julio L., 195 Ariz. at 484 , 990 P.2d at 685 .
In Re Julio L. 990 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Julio L. 990 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Cutright 2 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Cisneroz 947 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Cisneroz 947 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the supreme court, in rejecting an argument that the disturbing the peace statute was unconstitutional as overly broad, discussed the meaning of “neighborhood”: We find no merit to appellant’s argument that the term “neighborhood” refers only to a locality!
State v. Singer 945 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Singer 945 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
The supreme court imposed a similar analysis upon a “disturbing the peace”
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Zack 674 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Zack 674 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
the supreme court discussed what constituted a “loud and unusual noise” as defined in the former A.R.S.
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Urias 553 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Urias 553 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Starsky, supra; State v. Brahy, 22 Ariz.App.