Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Encinas, 647 P.2d 624.

75 citing documents.

State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Id.; (“[F]irst degree murder is only one crime regardless whether it occurs as a premeditated murder or a felony murder.”).
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
Id.; (“[T]he defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.” ()).
State v. Gilligan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gilligan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In that event, the jury need not reach a “unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.”
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(jury is not required to agree unanimously upon the precise manner the defendant committed an offense).
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
(explaining that the state must only prove the elements of the crime, and a defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the “precise manner in which the act was committed” ()).
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(finding no prejudice where the “[a]ppellant’s own confession proved the elements of all the crimes charged”); (“[W]e have no difficulty concluding beyond a reasonable doubt by reason of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, including, most importantly
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
The jury therefore must be unanimous “‘on whether the criminal act charged has been committed.’” -97, -28 (1982).
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
(“[T]he fact that the [predicate felony] supplied the premeditation necessary for first-degree murder does not make it part of the same offense.”); (“In Arizona, first degree murder is only one crime regardless whether it occurs as a premeditated murder or a felony murder.”).
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
-32, -02 (1968) (upholding assault conviction where two assaults occurring as part of a continuous course of conduct were charged in one count).
State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(holding defendant was not denied unanimous verdict even though court did not give separate verdict forms for premeditated murder and felony murder); , (quoting Encinas), aff'd, 501 U.S. 624 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
As the trial court correctly noted, “although a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.” , (-97 , -28 (1982)).
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See State v. Herrera, 174 Ariz. 387, 394, (kidnapping); -97, -28 (1982) (first-degree murder); Dixon, 127 Ariz. at 561, 622 P.2d at 508 (theft).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
(noting that duress is not a defense to crimes involving homicide, whether premeditated murder or felony murder, or serious bodily injury).
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
But our supreme court has stated, “[a]lthough a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.” (citation omitted); see also Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 49-51, 112 S. Ct. 466, 469-70, 12 116 L. Ed. 2d 371, 376-77 (1991); Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 629-30, 111 S. Ct. 2491, 2496, 115 L. Ed. 2d 555, 563-64 (1991); Stat
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); , 167 ¶ 50, -97 , -28 (1982).
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
Followed State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
Ct. 2491, 2504, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); , -97 , -28 (1982).
State v. Witwer 856 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Witwer 856 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
While there is authority for the proposition that it is not error at all to fail to instruct the jury that they must agree unanimously on what particular act or acts occurred which constituted the crime, , , and State v. Keith, 24 Ariz.App.
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
State v. HERRERA, SR. 859 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1993
-97 , -28 (1982), “[ajlthough a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.” See also, e.g., Griffin v. United States, - U.S. -
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
In a case predating Smith , we held that, although a unanimous jury verdict is required on whether the defendant committed the criminal act charged, a “defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.”
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
we stated: In Arizona, first degree murder is only one crime regardless whether it occurs as a premeditated murder or a felony murder.
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
See, , -45 , -15 (1983); -97 , -28 (1982).
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
we held that first degree murder is a single crime whether it is tried on the ground of felony murder, premeditation, or both.
State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
State v. Vess 756 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988