Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wussler, 679 P.2d 74.

47 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Philip John Martin 446 P.3d 806 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Philip John Martin 446 P.3d 806 Ariz. 2019
State v. Wussler , , 430, , 76 (1984).
State of Arizona v. Robert Carlos Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Robert Carlos Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶4 our supreme court held that a jury must find a defendant not guilty of the charged or greater offense before considering a lesser offense.
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In doing so, the court abandoned the use of an "acquittal-first” instruction, , which had held "the better rule is that which requires the jury to acquit the defendant on the charged offense before considering the lesser-included offenses.” 2 .
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
¶ 11 , the supreme *245 court upheld the requirement that a jury find the defendant not guilty of the greater crime before considering the lesser.
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.’ ” , ( , )
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
WUSSLER INSTRUCTION ¶ 49 , which requires jurors to acquit on a charged offense before considering anything less.
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
*43 This conformed with Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions, Standard Criminal 22 (1989)
State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. LeBlanc 924 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1996
State v. LeBlanc 924 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1996
This conforms with Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions, Standard Criminal 22 (1989)
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
Although we have previously rejected a similar claim, -30 , -76 (1984), we need not address it here.
State v. Engram 831 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Engram 831 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Hernandez 805 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Hernandez 805 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
However, , our Supreme Court stated that the instruction requested by the defendant is preferable to the RAJI instruction.
State v. Vita Lashona Flowers 768 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Vita Lashona Flowers 768 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
Defendant concedes that the trial court’s , -76 (1984).
State v. Santanna 735 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1987
State v. Santanna 735 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1987
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. Reidhead 731 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Reidhead 731 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
State v. Anzivino 716 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Anzivino 716 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.’ ” , , cert.
State v. Burton 697 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1985
State v. Burton 697 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 685 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Williams 685 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
it will be the rare case that an instruction to which a party does not object would warrant a reversal.
State v. Gooch 678 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gooch 678 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1984