Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 698 P.2d 732.

57 citing documents.

Franz v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Franz v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Opinion of the Court Despite the statute, our supreme court has held that “[s]trict liability offenses are the exception rather than the rule and will only be found where there is a clear legislative intent not to require any degree of mens rea.” ¶ 6 (App. 2013) (alteration in original) (); (“The requirement that in a criminal case the State demonstrate some degree of wrongful intent is the rule rather than the exception.
State of Arizona v. James Hamberlin 515 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. James Hamberlin 515 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
v. Nyquist, (“The requirement that in a criminal case the State demonstrate some degree of wrongful intent is the rule rather than the exception.”).
State v. Nelson 492 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Nelson 492 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶13 Though Nelson and the State both acknowledge no statute or case has expressly imposed a mental-state element on the statute at issue here, instructive.
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§§ 28-1381.A.1 (“impaired to the slightest degree”); -1383.A.1 (license is “suspended, canceled, revoked or refused”); (driving without license requires culpable mental state).
State v. Rael Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rael Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 28-1383(A)(1); (discussing necessary mental state); accord Rev. Ariz. Jury Instr.
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
however, our supreme court held that a conviction under § 28-1383(A)(1) requires proof the defendant knew or should have known his or her license was suspended, canceled, revoked or refused for a prior DUI offense.
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
knew or should have known of the suspension,” and “[o]nce the state proves mailing of the notice of suspension, the state no longer has the burden to prove receipt of the notice or actual knowledge of its contents[;] [t]he burden then shifts to the defendant to show that he did not receive the notice.” ¶¶ 12-13 (App. 2007) ( ); see also A.R.S.
State v. Branin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Branin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§§ 28-1381(A)(1) (“impaired to the slightest degree”), (A)(2) (“alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more within two hours of driving”), -1383(A)(1) (DUI committed “while the person’s driver license or privilege to drive is suspended”); (noting the additional requirement that “the driver knew or should have known that the license has been suspended”).
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(interpreting former A.R.S.
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§§ 28-1381(A)(1), -1383(A)(1)
State v. Yazzie 307 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Yazzie 307 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Notwithstanding this statute (and earlier, similar versions), our supreme court has held that “[sjtrict liability offenses are the exception rather than the rule and will only be found where there is a clear legislative intent not to require any degree of mens rea.” , accord State v. Williams, *617 , (“The requirement that in a criminal case the State demonstrate some degree of wrongful intent is the rule rather than the exception.
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State v. Cifelli 155 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Cifelli 155 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-89 , -34 (1985) (holding that offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor with a suspended license is not a strict liability offense: “The State must show that the driver knew or should have known that the license has been suspended.”).
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Young 965 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Young 965 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 30 “Strict liability applies only where there is a clear legislative intent that the crime does not require any degree of mens rea.” , (emphasis added).
State v. Agee 887 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Agee 887 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
As source for the instruction
State v. Ekmanis 885 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Ekmanis 885 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See, , (holding that the general rule is that state must demonstrate some degree of wrongful intent in criminal cases); , (stating that requirement of mens rea in criminal cases is rule rather than exception).
State v. Rivera 868 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Rivera 868 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Wilkinson 787 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Wilkinson 787 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Corrales 777 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Corrales 777 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
Although a defendant has the right to an appeal in a criminal case, the appeal must be properly initiated, , the record on appeal must contain the material to which objection is made, , and the defendant must raise and argue the issue relied upon in the appeal.
Shepherd v. Fahringer 762 P.2d 553 Ariz. 1988