Cited by

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

185 citing documents.

State v. Hurley 4 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Hurley 4 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
less drastic alternative” than either first- or second-degree murder, and precluded the appellant from receiving “the full benefit of the reasonable-doubt standard.” , (citing Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Hoover 986 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Hoover 986 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(finding that theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery).
State v. Torres-Mercado 955 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Torres-Mercado 955 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Our supreme court has stated that the “main difference between the crimes of theft and robbery lies in the use or threat of force.” , , (theft is lesser-included offense of robbery).
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
(reversible error to deny request for lesser-included theft instruction where evidence supported it).
State v. Stevens 909 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Stevens 909 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Morrison 889 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Morrison 889 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Lara 880 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Lara 880 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
In other words, “the [lesser] offense must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime or____”
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
We have stated previously: “[t]he felony-murder rule, designed as it is to protect human life, represents sound public policy, is reasonably related to the end sought to be accomplished and is not constitutionally impermissible.” , (quoting State v. Goodseal, 220 Kan.
State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Woods 815 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Woods 815 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
DISCUSSION 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. King 802 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. King 802 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Khoshbin 804 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Khoshbin 804 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Gendron 804 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Gendron 804 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Lopez 762 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1988
State v. Lopez 762 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1988
State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1988
State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1988
Vickers, 129 Ariz. at 513