Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tramble, 695 P.2d 737.

47 citing documents.

State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
The statute applies to any “unlawful ‘acquisition’ of property belonging to others.”
State v. Moering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Moering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Laws, ch. 119, § 1, but "only in that subsection of the theft statute which specifies the degrees of the crime of theft and the punishment for each," State v. Tramble , , 51, , 740 (1985).
State v. Hon kalauli/kroll 414 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon kalauli/kroll 414 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
5 STATE v. HON KALAULI/KROLL Opinion of the Court offenses.” 4 The court explained that “[t]he obvious purpose in enacting this ‘omnibus’ theft statute was to eliminate technical distinctions between various types of stealing and to deal with all forms in a single statute, thus simplifying prosecution for the unlawful ‘acquisition’ of property belonging to others.” I
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
is concerned with what the defrauder obtains.”); (noting the legislature’s intent in enacting A.R.S.
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
-90, ¶ 14 , -906 (App. 2009); , *108 ¶ 12, ¶ 8 , , 711 P.
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
As the state points out, these cases generally hold that § 13-1802 creates “a single crime of ‘theft,’ combining or merging the common law crimes of larceny, fraud, embezzlement, obtaining money by false pretenses, and other similar offenses.” see also State v. Wolter, 197 Ariz. 1 1993 Ariz. Sess.
State v. Joachim 48 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Joachim 48 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Ordinarily, if a statute is taken from another state, we will adopt that state’s interpretation as long as it is “consistent with our legislative goals or intent.”
State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
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. McNair, 1
State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Our supreme court has stated that the “main difference between the crimes of theft and robbery lies in the use or threat of force.” , , (theft is lesser-included offense of robbery).
State v. Stevens 909 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Fogarty 871 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Fogarty 871 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
(rule of strict construction followed by other state courts in interpreting penal statutes is not consistent with Arizona’s legislative policy).
State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Baker v. Gardner 770 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1989
Baker v. Gardner 770 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1989
In re the Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-9403 762 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In re the Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-9403 762 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 754 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1987
SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 754 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1987
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
Gammons v. Berlat 696 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1985
Followed Gammons v. Berlat 696 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1985