Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dugan, 608 P.2d 771.
-
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
- State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Cousin 664 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Cousin 664 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Fayle 658 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Fayle 658 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Harris 655 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- State v. Harris 655 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- State v. Brokaw 658 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- State v. Brokaw 658 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- State v. Yarbrough 638 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Yarbrough 638 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Rineer 639 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Rineer 639 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Aguirre 633 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Aguirre 633 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Parker 624 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Parker 624 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Cruz 617 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1980
-
State v. Cruz
617 P.2d 1149
Ariz. 1980
§ 13-1641 became applicable preventing double punishment.” , : “An offense may be the lesser included of another offense, but factually, dependent upon the evidence, may or may not be ‘necessarily included’ in the greater offense.
- State v. Clovis 618 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Clovis 618 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980