DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Grilz, 666 P.2d 1059.

45 citing documents.

  • Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
  • Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
    ¶34 In evaluating the nature of the presumption in the 2021 statute, we begin with this Court’s that the United States Supreme Court has “identified several kinds of presumptions”: A “permissive presumption” is really nothing more than an inference.
  • State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ence of the defendant’s running away, hiding, or concealing evidence.” It expressly informed the jury that flight or concealment “does not by itself prove guilt.” Interpreting this 17 STATE v. FOSTER Opinion of the Court language “as a reasonable juror could have interpreted it,” the instruction cannot reasonably be interpreted as imposing a mandatory presumption.
  • Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (“[T]he presumption of sanity is a procedural device[.]”); (“We view presumptions as procedural, rather than evidentiary, concepts.“); (“A presumption is not evidence of anything, and only relates to a rule of law
  • State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    e presumptions, the presumption of continued incompetence “disappears entirely upon the introduction of any contradicting evidence and when such evidence is introduced the existence or non-existence of the presumed [incompetence] is to be determined exactly as if no presumption had ever been operative.” (presumption of sanity “vanishes once [defendant] presents sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to sanity”).
  • State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
    A rebuttable presumption, however, “vanishes when the state provides contradictory evidence.” 8 Korzep, 172 Ariz. at 539, 838 P.2d at 1300; (once a defendant produces evidence sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to sanity, the presumption disappears entirely).
  • Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    456 n. 3, , 1065 n. 3 (1983) (discussing and applying presumptions from civil cases in a criminal context).
  • State v. Martinez 47 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Martinez 47 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    See, -56 , -65 (1983) (presumption of sanity); , (presumption of due care); Glodo v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, , (considering the “presumption that a claimant does not intend to inju
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
    takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.’ ” , ( , )
  • Korzep v. Superior Court 838 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Korzep v. Superior Court 838 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • 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. Rodriguez-Gonzales 790 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Rodriguez-Gonzales 790 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Bowling 726 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Bowling 726 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
    in which this court stated: “...
  • State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Davis 714 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
    (whether specific finding of dangerousness is required depends upon whether the second degree murder instruction required a finding of dangerousness).
  • State v. Caldera 688 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Caldera 688 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Spoon 669 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Spoon 669 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1983
    we recently explained the difference between mandatory and permissive presumptions as follows: “A ‘permissive presumption’ is really nothing more than an inference.