Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McNair, 687 P.2d 1230.

104 citing documents.

State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“[A]n accomplice may be either the principal or an accessory to the crime.”).
State v. Stuebe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Stuebe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brackeen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Brackeen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶9 A statute is void for vagueness “when it fails to give fair notice of what it prohibits.” (citation omitted)
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
–81 (1984); – 19 (1969).
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, e.g., Cheramie, 218 Ariz. at 450, ¶ 18; –81 (1984) (noting that a jury can infer criminal intent from the relationship of the parties and their conduct before the crime occurred).
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
Carter, 245 Ariz. at 393 ¶ 35; Garcia, 235 Ariz. at 630 ¶ 7; see Wall, 212 Ariz. at 4 ¶ 15; Celaya, 135 Ariz. at 252; Dugan, 125 Ariz. at 195; –73 (App. 1981).
State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The record included evidence supporting an accomplice liability instruction, which required that Skeldon “knowingly and with criminal intent participate[d], associate[d], or concur[red] with another in the commission of a crime.” (quotation omitted); see also A.R.S.
In Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A person can be held responsible for these offenses as an accomplice, which is described as “one who knowingly and with criminal intent participates, associates, or concurs with another in the commission of a crime.” IN RE KALIB A. Decision of the Court 480 (1984) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also A.R.S.
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–4, ¶ 15 (2006) (theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery); (same); (same); (same); –73 (App. 1981) (same).
State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
f armed robbery, (2) theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery, –4 ¶ 15, –51 (2006); –73, –40 (App. 1981) (“theft
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(“[T]he main difference between the crimes of theft and robbery lies in the use or threat of force, and not in whether the taking was from the person’s body or from his or her immediate area of control.”)
State v. Noriega 928 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Noriega 928 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re the Maricopa County Juvenile Action 938 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re the Maricopa County Juvenile Action 938 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Considered in that light, we agree that the new instruction might have assisted the jury to glean a meaning of “corrupt intent” consistent with the meaning of “corruptly.” , (supplemental jury instruction is evaluated in light of all instructions and will constitute error only if it contradicts “true rule of law” and misleads the jury on a material point).
State v. Johnson 903 P.2d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Johnson 903 P.2d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(parole); , , (any other release from confinement).
Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Stated another way, a statute is unconstitutional for vagueness if it fails to sufficiently inform “those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.” , (quoting Connally v. General Constr.
State v. Woolbright 874 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Woolbright 874 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Cordero 851 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Cordero 851 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
as principals, aiders and abettors, or accessories before the fact.” , citing Levering v. Commonwealth, 132 Ky.
State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Hudson, Sowards, , 687 * (finding need not be made by a jury); , (probation status need only be established by “reasonable evidence”); , (the court must find release status by clear
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
(§ 13-604.02, armed 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. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
(quoting Connally v. General Constr.
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
as principals, aiders and abettors, or accessories before the fact.” , quoting Levering v. Commonwealth, 132 Ky.