Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McLoughlin, 679 P.2d 504.

27 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
¶61 While Rodriguez concedes his “offense was undoubtedly serious and warrants substantial punishment,” he maintains his conduct does not “warrant a life sentence” because he “did not intentionally cause the collision or R.C.’s death.” However, -86 (1984), our supreme court squarely addressed and rejected this argument: [T]he mens rea necessary to satisfy the premeditation element of [felony] first-degree murder is supplied by the specific intent required for the [relevant underlying] felony.
State v. Givens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Givens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
(“It is not unconstitutional for the Arizona Legislature to mandate that an individual who causes the death of another while seeking to accomplish one of several enumerated felonies, each of which requires a showing of intent and/or knowledge for conviction, be subject to the same criminal charges and puni
State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶28 Arizona’s felony murder statute satisfies due process because it “require[s] proof of the mental state required for commission of the relevant felony.”
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Moore 189 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Moore 189 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
§ 13-1105(A)(2) “focuses on the result of criminal conduct rather than on an offender’s state of mind.”
State v. Cabanas-Salgado 92 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Cabanas-Salgado 92 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
§ 13-1105(A)(2); -86 , -09 (1984) (felony murder does not require proof of specific intent to kill; mens rea is satisfied by the intent required for the underlying felony).
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
First, the prosecution was required to prove the specific intent to commit the predicate felony, and “the mens rea necessary to satisfy the premeditation element of first-degree murder is supplied by the specific intent required for the felony.” -86 , , 508-09 (1984)
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Garcia v. State 713 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Mother Tucker's Food Experience & Insurance v. Industrial Commission 690 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984