Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Routhier, 669 P.2d 68.

96 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez 565 P.3d 1034 Ariz. 2025
¶36 Melendez and the court of appeals rely, in part, to conclude that the State’s impeachment violated Melendez’s due process rights.
State v. Givens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Givens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(criminal intent is proven by circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s conduct and comments).
State v. Melendez 535 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Melendez 535 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶28 an officer read the defendant his Miranda rights before questioning him.
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
("Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.").
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
[A] [d]efendant’s conduct and comments are evidence of his state of mind.” ¶ 16 (2009) ().
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶9 We will affirm a conviction for attempted murder if the evidence shows “some overt act or steps taken toward the commission of the crime and an intent to commit the crime.”
State v. Burger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Burger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶12 Criminal intent is generally shown by circumstantial evidence because it reflects a defendant’s “state of mind,” ¶ 16 (2009) (), and we do not distinguish “between the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence” in ascertaining the defendant’s state of mind, n.1 (1993).
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Generally, criminal intent is shown by circumstantial evidence because it reflects a defendant’s “state of mind,” ¶ 16 (2009) (), and we do not distinguish “between the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence” in assessing the defendant’s state of mind.
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
[is] evidence of his state of mind.” ().
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Defendant’s conduct and comments are evidence of his state of mind.” ¶ 16 (2009) ().
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
[A] [d]efendant’s conduct and comments are evidence of his state of mind.” ¶ 16 (2009) ().
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
[A] [d]efendant’s conduct and comments are evidence of [her] state of mind.” ¶ 16 (2009) ().
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Harm, 236 Ariz. at 406, ¶ 13 ( ).
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“[I]ntent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, as a defendant’s state of mind ‘is seldom, if ever, susceptible of proof by direct evidence.’” ¶ 13 (App. 2015) (); (“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
rect and circumstantial evidence, West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16, recognizing that a conviction may rest solely on circumstantial evidence, n.1 (1993); ¶ 16 (2009) (“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.” ()).
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Galvez-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Galvez-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A defendant’s “conduct and comments are evidence of [her] state of mind.”
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Thus, a jury “will usually have to infer it from his behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event.” Id.; (“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.”); (“Intent to commit theft or any felony can be shown by circumstantial evidence.”).
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶13 “Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.” (citation omitted); (citations omitted) (“Intent to commit theft or any felony can be shown by circumstantial evidence.”); ¶ 27, (stating that the defendant’s “f
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017