Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Celaya, 660 P.2d 849.

185 citing documents.

State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Under Arizona law, a lesser-included offense is “one ‘composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.” ¶ 7 (2015) (); -30 (App. 2014) (“[T]he greater offense must require each element of the lesser offense plus one or more additional elements not required by the lesser offense.”) ( ¶ 39 (App. 2001)
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶ 18; -53, -54 (1983) (instruction warranted when, from evidence presented, jury could rationally find state failed to prove disputed element distinguishing greater offense from lesser).
State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
¶7 A lesser-included offense is one “composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
we noted in addressing a former grand theft statute that required only a felonious stealing, taking, carrying, or driving away of the motor vehicle of another, “it is unquestionably the law of this jurisdiction that in order for there to be a theft of goods, there must be an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the goods.” Wood, 7 Ariz. App. at 24, 435 P.2d at 859; (culpable mental state in theft necessary element of robbery despite language of statute).
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
861, 874 (1993); (2) theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery, –4 ¶ 15, –51 (2006); –73, –40 (App. 1981) (“theft is always a lesser included offense of robbery”); and
State v. Estrada-Resendiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Estrada-Resendiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“To constitute a lesser- included offense, the offense must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
State v. Heard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Heard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(noting the conditional nature of the flight instruction, as well as the fact that “the jury was instructed to disregard any instructions they found not to apply after they had determined the facts.”); (“The flight instruct
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
A lesser included offense is one “composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“To constitute a lesser-included offense, the offense must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Breed 286 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Breed 286 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
We review the statutes at issue to determine if the lesser crime is “composed solely of some but not all *463 of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.” , , (explaining that a lesser-included instruction is proper only when the greater crime requires the jury to find a disputed factual element which is not required for conviction of the lesser crime) (citation omitted).
State v. Geeslin 225 P.3d 1129 Ariz. 2010
State v. Geeslin 225 P.3d 1129 Ariz. 2010
A lesser-included offense is “composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 8 Under the “elements” test, a lesser-included offense is one “composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A lesser-included offense is an offense “composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶9 A lesser-included offense “must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“‘To constitute a lesser-included offense, the offense must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime as charged without having committed the lesser one.’”), (“An offense is ‘lesser included’ when the ‘greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense.’”), State v. Caudillo
State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
A. Lesser-Included Offense Analysis ¶9 “To constitute a lesser-included offense, the offense must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.” ¶ 2
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
perspective of a reasonable person who has been a victim of those past acts of domestic violence.” ¶36 We held in State v. Celaya that “where the sole defense is self-defense so that the evidence requires either conviction or acquittal, any instruction on any other grade would be impermissible.” ¶ 29, (noting that when defendant asserts an “all-or- nothing” defense, the record usually will not support the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction); State v. Jones, 109 Ariz. 80, 81-82, 505
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶5 To be a lesser-included offense, “the offense must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
A lesser-included offense is an offense "composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
“A lesser-included offense is one ‘composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.’” Miranda
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Miranda 22 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2001
State v. Miranda 22 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2001
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Victoria K. 11 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Victoria K. 11 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000