Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. White, 697 P.2d 328.

32 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Lazaro Enrique Villa, Jr. 548 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Lazaro Enrique Villa, Jr. 548 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[B]y finding defendant guilty of the highest offense, to the exclusion of the immediately lesser-included offense .
State v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Nelson, 229 Ariz. at 186, ¶ 24 (“When a jury is given a choice between first-degree murder and second-degree murder and convicts on first-degree murder, it has necessarily rejected manslaughter.”); (“[B]y finding defendant guilty of the highest offense, to the exclusion of the immediately lesser-included offense, second degree murder, the jury necessarily rejected all other lesser- included offenses.
State v. Moering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Moering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
("[W]hen a defendant is convicted of first degree murder rather than second degree murder, any error as to instructions on lesser included offenses is necessarily harmless, because the jury has necessarily rejected all lesser- included crimes."); ("[B]y finding defendant guilty of the highest offense, to the exclusion of the immediately lesser-included offense .
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
By rejecting that lesser-included offense, it “necessarily rejected all other lesser-included offenses.”
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
at ¶ 64, and the jury “‘necessarily rejected all other lesser-included offenses.’” ( ).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
Because the jury had the option of these immediately-lesser included offenses, but nonetheless found the defendant guilty of the highest offense, it “necessarily rejected all other lesser-included offenses.” , ( , ).
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
( , ); , (any error in failing to give manslaughter instruction cured by first degree murder conviction while rejecting second degree); , (“[Fjinding defendant guilty of the highest offense, to the exclusion of the immediately lesser-included offense, second degree murder, the jury necessarily rejected all other lesser-included offenses”).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In its brief, the state incorrectly asserts that "[m]anslaughter is a lesser included offense of first degree murder,” (emphasis added), relying on a
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. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ortiz 764 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ortiz 764 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1988
see also State v. Nowlin, 244 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 1976).
State v. Lopez 762 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1988
State v. Lopez 762 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
Manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder, , and the trial court should have given a manslaughter instruction if the evidence at trial would have supported a manslaughter conviction.
State v. Kreps 706 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1985
State v. Kreps 706 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1985