DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Van Dyke, 621 P.2d 22.

28 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. James Murray Reaves, III 506 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
  • State of Arizona v. James Murray Reaves, III 506 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
    Importantly, it distinguished this conclusion from prior case law, which upheld a burglary conviction when the residence in question “primarily belonged to the victim” and the defendant had entered “with consent” but could claim “only limited possessory rights in the property.” Altamirano, 166 Ariz. at 435.
  • State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (“[E]ven where the physical entry is objectively legitimate, entry will be illegal if the defendant’s subjective intent is to commit a felony.”).
  • State v. Bruno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Bruno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Hoover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Hoover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Although Hoover is correct that the jury’s verdict must be based only on the evidence without regard to the possible penalty, the Facebook message admitted here did not refer to prison at all, much less to a particular penalty.
  • Segura v. Cunanan 196 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Segura v. Cunanan 196 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    (“Essentially the initial appearance is designed to inform the defendant of why he has been arrested, when he must next appear, and to release him if possible.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Lance Christian Hamblin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Lance Christian Hamblin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    (“Arizona cases clearly establish that even where the physical entry is objectively legitimate, entry will be illegal if the defendant’s subjective intent is to commit a felony.”); (“[The] manner of entry is not material t
  • State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Altamirano 803 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Altamirano 803 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    The state opposed the motion
  • State v. Adams 703 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Adams 703 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    -38 , -25 (1980), in addressing this issue, our supreme court stated: It is true a defendant is entitled to a jury verdict based on the evidence and without regard to the possible punishment, but here, by agreement of the parties, the jury was informed that no death sentence would be rendered.
  • State v. Embree 633 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Embree 633 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981