Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dugan, 608 P.2d 771.

82 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
n offense is ‘lesser included’ when the ‘greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense.’ But an offense is ‘necessarily included,’ and so requires that a jury instruction be given, only when it is lesser included and the evidence is sufficient to support giving the instruction.” Wall, 212 Ariz. at 3 ¶ 14 (internal citations omitted) ().
State v. Moering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Moering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶22 is similarly unpersuasive.
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶7 “An offense is ‘lesser included’ when the ‘greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense.’” Wall, 212 Ariz. at 3, ¶ 14 ().
State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
¶ 30 (2006) (finding evidence sufficient for a lesser- included offense instruction where the “facts were such that the jury could reasonably believe portions of the [witness’s] story and portions of the defendant’s story”); (allowing an instruction for a lesser-included offense where the jury may weigh contradictory testimonies and believe parts of each); (“These asserted contradictions and discrepancies are of such a nature as can and usually do occur in the course of most trials where
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–4, ¶ 15 (2006) (theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery); (same); (same); (same); –73 (App. 1981) (same).
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“[A]n offense is ‘necessarily included,’ and so requires that a jury instruction be given, only when it is lesser included and the evidence is sufficient to support giving the instruction.” (emphasis omitted).
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(2) theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery, –4 ¶ 15, –51 (2006); –73, –40 (App. 1981) (“theft is always a lesser included offense of robbery”); and (3) theft is a lesser-included offense of armed robber
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
9 STATE v. DELGADO Decision of the Court committing the lesser offense.’”) ( ).
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“‘An offense is lesser included when the greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense.’” (emphasis added)
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Breed 286 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Breed 286 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
We review the statutes at issue to determine if the lesser crime is “composed solely of some but not all *463 of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.” , , (explaining that a lesser-included instruction is proper only when the greater crime requires the jury to find a disputed factual element which is not required for conviction of the lesser crime) (citation omitted).
State v. Geeslin 225 P.3d 1129 Ariz. 2010
State v. Geeslin 225 P.3d 1129 Ariz. 2010
(reviewing the record on appeal to determine whether evidence supported necessarily included offense instruction).
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(jury may believe part of testimony).
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
at 5-6, ¶¶ 22, 31, 126 P.3d at 152- 53; -96, -73 (1980).
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
that it is impossible to have committed the crime as charged without having committed the lesser one.’”), (“An offense is ‘lesser included’ when the ‘greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense.’”), (test to determine if offense 23 is lesser included is whether the greater offense could not have been committed without necessarily committing the lesser); see also In re
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶ 6 “ ‘An offense is lesser included when the greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense.’”
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
State v. Dugan, 125 Ariz. 194, 195
State v. Alexander 858 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Alexander 858 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(theft is a lesser included offense of robbery).
State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
We see nothing inconsistent, illogical or improper about a defendant saying, “I was not the person who committed the robbery, but even if you do not believe me, the evidence shows that whoever did commit it was not armed.”
State v. Woods 815 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Woods 815 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(instruction on lesser-included offense required when lesser crime included in offense charged).
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cf. State v. Celaya, supra
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
-96 , -73 (1980); -73 , -40 (App. 1981); Rule 23.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Wise 671 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Wise 671 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
our Supreme Court *480 made it clear that the words “necessarily included” found in Rule 23.3 are not synonymous with the words “lesser included.” The court observed that an offense may be the lesser included of another offense, but factually, dependent upon the evidence, may or may no