Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Shumway, 672 P.2d 929.

61 citing documents.

Franz v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Franz v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Stuebe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Stuebe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶14 “A party is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State v. Quinonez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Quinonez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[A] comment on the evidence .
State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
–89 (1983) (error to refuse instruction on victim’s duty to yield, because evidence supported the theory that defendant had the right of way in an intersection collision).
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
D. Causation ¶29 Freeman argues he was “entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence,” State v. Shumway, 8 STATE v. FREEMAN Decision of the Court and the superior court erred when it did not sua sponte give a superseding cause instruction.
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶11 Skeldon next argues the superior court erred in instructing the jury on accomplice liability because no other persons involved in the crime were charged and no evidence showed that Skeldon “had an accomplice or worked with another to sell drugs.” But the State was “entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State v. Mainez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mainez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(concluding superior court’s ex parte communication that the jurors had “received all the instructions relevant to th[e] case” was harmless, specifically noting “that the judge’s response was in writing and added nothing to the settled instructions which
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶16 Sommerfield argues the superseding cause instruction was necessary because jurors could consider the victim’s conduct when determining his culpability.
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Although Walsh was entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence, the trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when its substance is adequately 3 STATE v. WALSH Decision of the Court covered by other instructions.
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶19 A defendant “is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.” Bolton, 182 Ariz. at 309, 896 P.2d at 849 ( ).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(party entitled to instruction on any theory of case reasonably supported by evidence); ¶¶ 200-01, (no abuse of discretion in court’s refusal to give voluntary-act instruction where defendant presented no testimony sug
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“A party is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.”); , (same).
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“A party is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Michael Manuel Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Michael Manuel Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(jury instruction should be given if evidence reasonably supports it).
Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶31 “A party is entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
defendant argues that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could consider whether the victim’s truck was traveling without headlights at the time of the accident when determining whether defendant had the requisite state of mind to be convicted of manslaughter.
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995