Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Barnett, 691 P.2d 683.
- Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
- E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
- State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
- O'Meara v. Gottsfield 851 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
- O'Meara v. Gottsfield 851 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Giorgiani 808 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- State v. Giorgiani 808 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
-
State v. Sanchez
797 P.2d 703
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Rules of Crim.Proc., Rule 21.3(c)
- State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
-
State v. Valles
780 P.2d 1049
Ariz. 1989
Mincey, 130 Ariz. at 397 , 636 P.2d at 645 ( , ); Defendant asserts that the omissions in the jury instructions constituted fundamental error.
- State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
-
State v. Smith
774 P.2d 811
Ariz. 1989
(failure to define “intentionally” as used in assault and aggravated assault statutes was not fundamental error).
- State v. Albrecht 762 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
-
State v. Albrecht
762 P.2d 628
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Rule 21.3(c), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.
- State v. Renforth 746 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Renforth 746 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Valentine 742 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Valentine 742 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Harris 727 P.2d 14 Ariz. 1986
-
State v. Harris
727 P.2d 14
Ariz. 1986
-95 , -86 (1984) (trial court did not commit fundamental error in failing sua sponte to instruct the jury as to the definition of “intentionally”).
- State v. Thompson 711 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- State v. Thompson 711 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- State v. Borbon 706 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1985
-
State v. Borbon
706 P.2d 718
Ariz. 1985
We have stated that “words with common meaning need not be defined where the ordinary definition of the word and the statutory definition of the word are essentially the same.”
- Harrison v. Ellis 704 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Harrison v. Ellis 704 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985