Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garcia, 560 P.2d 1224.

44 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
He asserts the court’s failure to include his requested instruction 5 constitutes reversible error.2 (remanding for new trial where trial court provided no jury instruction on state’s burden to disprove justification); P.2d 1224 (1977) (same).
State v. Dorman 805 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1991
State v. Dorman 805 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1991
this court held that a trial court commits reversible error by refusing a defendant’s requested instruction that the state has the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
State v. Buggs 806 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Buggs 806 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Diaz 803 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Diaz 803 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Once a defendant presents evidence sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to whether his conduct was justified, lack of justification becomes an element of the offense which the state must establish beyond a reasonable doubt, , , and the jury must be so instructed.
State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
§ 13-1204, , and there was evidence that defendant used it in committing the assault.
State v. Hunter 688 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hunter 688 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1984
State v. Moya 672 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Moya 672 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
Weapons which have been held inherently dangerous as a matter of law include a “rather large” knife which was “like a bayonet,” , a 14-inch prison-made “shank,” , a switchblade, , a hatchet, , and straight-edged razors, Wilson v. State, 85 Nev.
State v. Sourivathong 636 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Sourivathong 636 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Annot., 43 A.L.R.3d 221 , 232.
State v. Canedo 608 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1980
State v. Canedo 608 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1980
however, we feel that this will no longer present an issue on retrial.
State v. Williams 610 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Williams 610 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Evans 608 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Evans 608 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In support of his argument that the trial court should have given a specific instruction that the state had to prove the lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt
State v. Barnes 606 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1980
State v. Barnes 606 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1980
Appellant’s , is misplaced because that case involved an original charge under A.R.S.
State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
arguing, that here as in Garcia , the Information used language applicable to both Subsections A and B of A.R.S.
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1163 Ariz. 1978
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1163 Ariz. 1978
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
§ 13-249(A) and (B).” Appellant argues, , , that the conjunctive allegation of Assault with a Deadly Weapon under both A.R.S.
State v. Denny 579 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1978
State v. Denny 579 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1978
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. Kidd 569 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Distinguished State v. Kidd 569 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
in support of his contention.