Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Noriega, 690 P.2d 775.

86 citing documents.

State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-58 (1929) (citation omitted); (affirming denial of self-defense instruction where defendant burglarized a home and did not attempt to withdraw other than "to threaten deadly force to escape from the scene of a crime with stolen property"), n.7 (1990); Kelly, 149 Ariz. at 11
State v. Mieg 239 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Mieg 239 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-86 , -87 (1984) (discussing surrounding circumstances before concluding that post-trial enhancement allegation did not give rise to presumption of vindictiveness); , , 704 *449 (App.1992) (applying totality of circumstances to pretrial charging dec
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
See, Dumaine, 162 Ariz. at 404, 783 P.2d at 1196; P.2d 754 (1990).
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
Second, because the state would usually be prohibited from seeking a sentence longer than initially imposed after a defendant’s successful appeal, see Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28-29 (1974); n.7, n.7 (1990), a remand after a reversal under the Henley approach would be conducted before an eight-person jury.
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
icient evidence existed to require a lesser-included offense instruction, the court must examine “whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” ( overruled on other grounds, P.2d 754 (1990)).
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(A prosecutor’s refusal to plea bargain due to a personal dislike of the accused’s counsel is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which could, under appropriate facts, warrant discipline.), overruled, on other grounds
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
To determine whether the evidence requires giving of theft as a lesser included offense of armed robbery, “the test is ‘whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’ ” Krone, 182 Ariz. at 323 , 897 P.2d at 625 ( , (Detrich I)) (quoting State v. (Vivian Rhea) Noriega, , , 28 n. 7, , 757 n. 7 (1990)).
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
“To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is ‘whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’ ” , ( , ).
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
overruled on other grounds, , 28 n. 7, , 757 n. 7 (1990).
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
“To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is “whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’” , , (1994) ( , ).
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is “whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” , overruled on other grounds
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
overruled on other grounds, , 28 n. 7, , 757 n. 7 (1990).
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Tsosie 832 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Tsosie 832 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness applies if there is a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness in the decision to reindict a criminal defendant); United States v. Heldt, 745 F.2d 1275, 1280 (9th Cir.1984) (mere appearance of vindictiveness gives rise to a presumption of vindi
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
overruled on other grounds
State v. Burge 804 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1990
Overruled State v. Burge 804 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1990
To the extent they state that a grand jury allegation of dangerousness in an indictment is invalid to invoke § 13-604’s sentence enhancement provisions, , also are overruled.
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Korzep 799 P.2d 831 Ariz. 1990
State v. Korzep 799 P.2d 831 Ariz. 1990
A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on self defense “whenever there is the slightest evidence of justification for the defensive act.” , ( , )
State v. Waits 786 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Waits 786 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
ed robbery and aggravated assault); , (§ 13-604.01, sexual assault); , (§ 13-604.01, manslaughter); , (§ 13-604.01, armed robbery); , (§ 13-604.01, accomplice to armed robbery); , (§ 13-604,01, burglary and assault).
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
244 n. 5, , 767 n. 5, cert.
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. Wright 786 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Wright 786 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
State v. Jobe 757 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Jobe 757 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988