DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Parker, 624 P.2d 294.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 9 (App. 2007) (); (absent an admission from the defendant under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.6 regarding the dangerous character of the offense, a separate finding from the jury is required).
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    ot enhance sentence if “additional findings” outside of verdicts required); -01 (App. 2013) (courts look to statutes defining offense, the indictment, and “whether ‘an element of the offense charged contains an allegation and requires proof’ of dangerousness” when determining if dangerousness inherent in offense)
  • State v. Montano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Montano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Larin, 233 Ariz. at 212, ¶ 38
  • State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    McCray, 183 P.3d at 508.
  • State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    (dangerous nature allegation “must be submitted to the jury for a separate finding unless an element of the offense charged contains an allegation and requires proof of the dangerous nature of the felony”) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Olsen 760 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Olsen 760 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    aff'd in part, , this court not only upheld the prosecutor’s discretion to allege “dangerousness,” but concluded that the mandatory sentence imposed on the defendant following his conviction for shooting a six-month-old baby did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
  • State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
    mandate separate verdict forms for the finding of dangerousness.
  • State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
    (specific finding of dangerousness required where offense charged was negligent homicide).
  • State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
    reversed on other grounds, , (miscitation of A.R.S.
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Williams 664 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Williams 664 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1983
    -112 , -09 (App.1980), judgment affirmed
  • State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    and that the verdict of the jury does not necessarily include a finding that the defendant knowingly or intentionally caused serious physical injury to the victim
  • State v. Brydges 653 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Brydges 653 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    In our opinion, the jury is the proper body to determine not only the fact of prior conviction but also its character, i.e., “dangerousness.” , which fixed the jury’s role in determining the “dangerous” character of substantive crimes listed in A.R.S.
  • State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1982
    we stated: “The finding of the dangerous nature of the felony must be submitted to the jury for a separate finding unless an element of the offense charged contains an allegation and requires proof of the dangerous nature of the felony.” (Emphasis added.)
  • State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    to refute the State’s argument.
  • State v. Grier 630 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Grier 630 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    State v. Smith, supra; , , vacated in part regarding another issue