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. Ramos, 648 P.2d 119.

70 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Arevalo 470 P.3d 644 Ariz. 2020
  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Arevalo 470 P.3d 644 Ariz. 2020
    “An act of the legislature is presumed constitutional, and where there is a reasonable, even though debatable, basis for enactment of the statute, the act will be upheld unless it is clearly unconstitutional.” see Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 864 (1989) (“It is our settled policy to avoid an interpretation of a federal statute that engenders constitutional issues if a reasonable alternative interpretation poses no constitutional question.”); cf. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading
  • State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
  • State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
    See, (“Psychiatric testimony to negate specific intent has consistently been excluded.”); (“Arizona does not permit psychiatric evidence of a mental disease or defect negativing a state of mind.”); (concluding that the trial c
  • In Re Tyrus T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • In Re Tyrus T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • 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 “false, misleading, and inconsistent statements to police,” and others, demonstrated th
  • State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    “[W]e have an obligation to interpret statutes so as to uphold their constitutionality, where possible,” (citing Business Realty of Ariz., ), and we strongly presume a statute to be constitutional, ().
  • State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    (Hathaway, J., dissenting), rev’d, , see also 1977 Ariz. Sess.
  • State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Akins 75 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Akins 75 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    The State notes that in determining the constitutionality of a statute, a strong presumption of constitutionality exists, , ( , ), and a statute must be interpreted “as a whole” with each of its provisions “given meaningful operation.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    ("The statutorily presumptive term of imprisonment for the crime for which appellant was found guilty is five years.
  • In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    See Brandon, 195 Ariz. at 388 , 988 P.2d at 620
  • In Re Brandon H. 988 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Brandon H. 988 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    ¶ 8 “Statutes are presumed to be constitutional and where there is a reasonable, even though debatable, basis for the statute, an act will be upheld unless it is clearly unconstitutional.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Cameron 916 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Cameron 916 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Mott 901 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Mott 901 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Brito 905 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Brito 905 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
    or with the intent to.” 2 And, previous decisions by this court illustrate that the law in Arizona is clear: “the jury may not consider voluntary intoxication with respect to the defendant’s culpable mental state [of knowingly].” , (emphasis added)
  • E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Cactus Wren Partners v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 869 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Cactus Wren Partners v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 869 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • Fernandez v. State Personnel Board 852 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • Fernandez v. State Personnel Board 852 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Terrell 811 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Terrell 811 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    There is a strong presumption in favor of a statute’s constitutionality, , and we should give a challenged statute a constitutional construction whenever possible.
  • State v. Rankovich 765 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Rankovich 765 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1988
    (evidence of intoxication allowed to negate the mental state of “intentionally,” but not the mental state of “knowingly”).
  • State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1988