Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fletcher, 717 P.2d 866.

59 citing documents.

State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶8 Although Austin has remained unchallenged, its premise was based on the insanity affirmative defense, that is, not guilty by reason of insanity, (stating that insanity is an affirmative defense) (citation omitted), which has been statutorily modified to “guilty except insane,” see 1993 Ariz. Sess.
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Procedural law “‘prescribes the method of enforcing a right or obtaining redress for the invasion of that right,’” whereas substantive law “‘creates, defines and regulates rights.’” (emphasis omitted).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Fletcher, 149 Ariz. 187, 189
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
“Because the legislature is empowered to set burdens of proof as a matter of substantive law, a valid statute specifying the burden of proof prevails over common law or court rules adopting a different standard.” Valerie M., 219 Ariz. at 336 ¶ 21, 198 P.3d at 1208 ; -93 , -72 (1986) (holding that burden of proof of insanity is substantive and may be altered by the legislature).
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 198 P.3d 1203 Ariz. 2009
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 198 P.3d 1203 Ariz. 2009
See, , 191— 92, -71 (1986) (recognizing legislature’s authority to modify common law and require defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence).
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-92 , -71 (1986); ¶ 27 , (rejecting defendant’s claim that A.R.S.
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Although “[a] precise distinction between substantive and procedural rights or interests has proven elusive,” 2 based on our supreme court’s P.2d 866 (1986), we conclude the relevant change to § 13-205 is substantive.
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
if in [the State's] judgment [it] would be too cumbersome, too expensive, and too inaccurate.” (alterations in Fletcher).
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(insanity); , (entrapment).
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
citing Dick v. New York Life Ins.
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Supinger 947 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Supinger 947 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See State v. Fletcher; , (noting that appellate review is hindered by absence of contemporaneous record of court’s consultation with counsel).
State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. LeBlanc 924 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1996
State v. LeBlanc 924 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1996
(Feldman, J., concurring); State v. Allen, 301 Or.
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See, , , , , State v. Babineaux, 22 Ariz.App.
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
State v. Krum 893 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Krum 893 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-92 , -71 (1986) (describing a "substantive" law as one which creates, defines, or regulates rights); Knutson v. *112 County of Maricopa, -47 , -01 (App.1993).
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Knutson v. County of Maricopa Ex Rel. Romley 857 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Knutson v. County of Maricopa Ex Rel. Romley 857 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
2319, 2325 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977); , (upholding constitutionality of Arizona’s new insanity statute).
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Weinbrenner 795 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Weinbrenner 795 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Substantive law, on the other hand, is that portion of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights.” , (emphasis in original).
State v. Stidham 791 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Stidham 791 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977)
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by