Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Zaragoza, 659 P.2d 22.

154 citing documents.

State v. Rendon 776 P.2d 353 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
State v. Glover 767 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1988
State v. Glover 767 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1988
Ordinarily we would not consider this issue because as we have previously noted “ ‘[i]t is the rare case in which an improper instruction will justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made in the trial court.’ ” , , cert.
State v. Stevens 764 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1988
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
State v. Cole 734 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Cole 734 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Figueroa 726 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Figueroa 726 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
State v. Borbon 706 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1985
State v. Borbon 706 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1985
We have stated that “words with common meaning need not be defined where the ordinary definition of the word and the statutory definition of the word are essentially the same.”
State v. Smith 705 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Smith 705 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. McCall, supra; , , cert.
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
See State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. *227 500, , , cert.
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
State v. Barnett 691 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1984
State v. Barnett 691 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1984
(words with common meaning need not be defined where the ordinary definition of the word and the statutory definition of the word are essentially the same); Rizzuto v. State, 407 A.2d 225 (Del.1979) (failure to define “sexual contact,” which is specifically defined by statute, is not error because
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
199 , 78 L.Ed.2d 174 (1983); , , cert.
State v. Wussler 679 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1984
State v. Wussler 679 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1984
[1] , we noted our agreement with the United States Supreme Court that "`[i]t is the rare case in which an improper instruction will justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made in the trial court.'" Id.
State v. Summerlin 675 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1983
State v. Summerlin 675 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
See, , (helplessness of victim shown by her advanced age and limited mental capabilities); State v. Ortiz, supra (indiscriminate attacks on three young children following the murder of their mother); State v. (Ricky) Tison, supra (helplessness shown by very young age of one victim and senselessness of mu
State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
*294 State v. Gretzler, supra, 135 Ariz. at 57 , 659 P.2d at 16 .
State v. Richmond 666 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1983