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 v. Bridgeforth 750 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Bridgeforth 750 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Chudy 706 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Chudy 706 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    The sentence imposed was not only within the statutory limits and followed an adequate investigation into the facts, , but it also complied with the terms of the plea agreement.
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
    ermine that the Defendant was intoxicated at the time, you may consider the fact that he was intoxicated in determining whether he could have intentionally committed the crime; however, you may not consider the fact that he was intoxicated in determining whether he could have knowingly committed the crime.” Appellant argues that, although the instruction is correct on the law, , (evidence of intoxication allowed to negate the mental state of “intentionally,” but not the mental state of “knowingl
  • State v. Frustino 689 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Frustino 689 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    See also, , , which refers to the culpable mental state of “knowingly” as a “watered down mens rea.” 133 Ariz. at 6 , .
  • State v. Chee 680 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Chee 680 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    y particular species or degree of offense, the jury may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time in determining the culpable mental state with which he committed the act.” (Emphasis added) This statute has been interpreted to preclude evidence supporting a voluntary intoxication defense where the mental state has been alleged to be “knowingly.”
  • State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. DeRosier 650 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. DeRosier 650 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1982