Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Laffoon, 610 P.2d 1045.

68 citing documents.

State v. Renteria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Renteria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
which must be proved for a conviction of aggravated assault”); (“A defendant need not necessarily commit assault when attempting murder since murder may be attempted without committing physical injury.”).
State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“Often facts may support another lesser conviction but if not charged in the indictment, the lesser offense may not be found.”); ¶ 9 (App. 2006) (declining to extend language in case law “to encompass or mandate consideration of all facts ultimately contained in the re
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
187 Ariz. at 541 (“Because the legislature has not provided for a diminished capacity defense, we have since consistently refused to allow psychiatric testimony to negate specific intent.”); (“Since the legislature has not seen fit to provide for a defense of diminished responsibility, we have consistently declined to allow psychiatric testimony to negate specific intent.”).
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“The elements of the crime as prescribed in the statute determine whether a crime is a lesser included offense of a greater offense, not the facts of a given case.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
is not followed in Arizona.”); (“Often facts may support another lesser conviction but if not charged in the indictment, the lesser offense may not be found.”).
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
determine whether a crime is a lesser included offense ..., not the facts of a given case.”
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
This court has repeatedly held “that the effect of alcohol intoxication is an area within the common knowledge and experience of the jury, and therefore, no expert testimony is needed to assist the trier of *408 fact.”
State v. Garcia 784 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Garcia 784 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
(test for voluntariness when defendant is under influence of narcotics or mental disabilities is whether condition renders him unable to understand the meaning of his statement).
State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
2 In the typical case, it is the defendant trying to show how alcohol impaired his ability to form the intent to commit a crime, see, , (trial judge correctly refused to let psychiatrist testify about impact of voluntary intoxication on ability to form specific intent for second-degree murder), although occasionally a defendant will try to show how alcohol induced a victim to behave in an abnormal fashion.
State v. Santanna 735 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1987
State v. Santanna 735 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1987
“When determining criminal responsibility, the jury may consider voluntary intoxication not as a defense but as it relates to the ability to form specific intent.”
State v. Mounce 721 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Mounce 721 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Wise 671 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1983
State v. Wise 671 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1983
State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
State v. Rodriguez 669 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Rodriguez 669 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
(expert may not testify that defendant was not acting reflectively at the time of the crime); , (expert may not testify that at the time of the crime defendant lacked ability to form specific intent); , (expert may not testify that defendant was not thinking reflectively at time of crime); see also, Bradshaw v. State, 353 So.2d 188 (Fla.
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Seats 638 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1981
State v. Seats 638 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1981
State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
State v. Rineer 639 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981