Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Haas, 675 P.2d 673.

70 citing documents.

State v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ahrens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ahrens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
5 ¶¶ 5-9 (App. 2008) (adding that requisite knowledge can exist if a defendant acts with “a conscious purpose to avoid learning the true contents” of the vehicle).
State v. Brice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
It concluded that fraudulent schemes and artifices can be “accomplished either by active misrepresentations, or omitting material facts which defendant knew were being misunderstood, or by stating half-truths, or by any combination of these methods.” –24 (1983).
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 13-2310.A; –24 (1983) (describing statutory elements under an earlier version of the fraud statute).
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 13-2310(A); –24 (1983) (discussing statutory elements of fraudulent schemes and artifices and their definitions under a prior version of the statute).
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“A scheme or artifice is some plan, device, or trick [used] to perpetrate a fraud,” ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (), and implies “numerous acts may be committed,”
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In the context of section 13-2310(A), “a scheme or artifice is some plan, device, or trick to perpetrate a fraud.” ¶ 12 (App. 2003) ( (internal quotation omitted)).
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Johnson, 179 Ariz. at 379 (“In Haas, we acknowledged the persuasive value of decisions construing the federal mail fraud statute in our construction of § 13–2310(A).”); (noting legislature adapted A.R.S.
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
And we view jury instructions as a whole to determine if they “adequately reflect the law.” ( ).
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[A]n ‘artifice’ is an ‘evil or artful strategy.’”
State v. Jones 218 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Jones 218 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶8 our supreme court used substantially the same language in affirming the defendant real estate agent’s 2 Although the practice is discouraged, a trial court may employ language from an appellate opinion when drafting a jury instruction if the instruction accurately state
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(defendant waived issue by failing to renew motion to sever count); , , -400 , -48 (1981); , Pierce, 27 Ariz.App.
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
§ 13-2310(A), which prohibits a person from, “pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtain[ing] any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions.” For purposes of § 13-2310(A), “a ‘scheme or artifice’ is some ‘plan, device, or trick’ to perpetrate a fraud.”
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
the supreme court interpreted an earlier version of the statute, A.R.S.
State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
We first note, , that there is a distinct difference between the federal mail fraud statute and the Arizona scheme or artifice statute.
State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See Rule 13.4, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
Rule 13.4(e), Ariz. R.Crim.P.
State v. Johnson 880 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1994
State v. Johnson 880 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1994
e v. Haas, we clarified and explained the statutory elements necessary to support a fraud conviction under § 13-2310(A): [T]he state must prove not only (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud, but also that (2) defendant knowingly and intentionally participated in it and that (3) it was a scheme for obtaining money or property by means of “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises.” , (emphasis added).
State v. Poundstone 880 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Poundstone 880 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
“The scheme need not be fraudulent on its face but ‘must involve some sort of fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.’ ” , (quoting United States v. Pearlstein, 576 F.2d 531, 535 (3d Cir.1978)) (other citations omitted).
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
Ness v. Western Security Life Insurance 851 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ness v. Western Security Life Insurance 851 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(1983), the elements of this section are as follows: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud, ...