Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Powers, 26 P.3d 1134.

48 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. hon.gordon/owen Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. hon.gordon/owen Ariz. 2025
9 9 On review before this Court, we noted that “[n]othing in the statute’s language refers to accident victims—the focus is on the scene of an accident.” ¶ 8 (2001).
State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
§ 28-661 is to ‘prohibit drivers from seeking to evade civil or criminal liability by escaping before their identity can be established.’” 202 Ariz. at 498, ¶ 18 ( ¶ 9 (2001)).
State v. Kelly 545 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Kelly 545 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶8 Kelly’s aff’d, he can only be convicted of one aggravated assault because the collision constituted a single criminal act that harmed just one person.
State v. Sulu-Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Sulu-Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶44 to support her contention that A.R.S.
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 9 (2001) (holding that § 28-661 is “scene related” not “victim related,” thus, defendant improperly charged with two hit-and-run charges where one vehicle accident resulted in two injured victims); (holding that the term “accident” in § 28-661 includes “any vehi
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 7 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2001), aff’d ).
State v. Gary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The double jeopardy clauses of the Arizona and United States Constitutions provide the same basic protection and prohibit “multiple punishments for the same offense.” ¶ 5, aff’d, P.3d 1134 (2001).
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
4 STATE V. JURDEN Opinion of the Court (App. 2001), approved, P.3d 1134 (2001).
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 5, approved, P.3d 1134 (2001).
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
z. at 318, ¶ 15, 257 P.3d at 1198 (“[W]e conclude that in considering [the defendant’s] lack of remorse and his failure to admit guilt, the trial court deprived him of a right essential to his defense.”); (remanding because trial court considered lack of remorse as aggravator), ¶ 10
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
es that for a Willits instruction to be warranted, “evidence must possess exculpatory value that is apparent before it is destroyed.” accord State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 551
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
approved, P.3d 1134 (2001).
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 467, -14, -32 (App. 1990), approved in relevant part
State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE EX REL. SMITH v. Reeves 250 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE EX REL. SMITH v. Reeves 250 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
§ 28-663(A)(3) (2004) provides that the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death shall “[r]ender reasonable assistance to a person injured in the accident!.]” ¶ 15 Citing State v. Powers (Powers II), , defendant argued, and the trial court agreed, that C.C.
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
approved on other grouds
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
[and] raises the potential for multiple punishments, which implicates double jeopardy.” , aff'd
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
§ 28-661, leaving the scene of an injury accident, only permits conviction for one offense, even when multiple persons are injured), ajfd
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
aff’d, P.3d 1134 (2001).
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See, P.3d 1134 (2001); P.2d 1220 (1984); P.2d 823 (App. 1989); P.2d 482 (App. 1989); P.2d 1034 (App. 1982).
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
§ 28-661 is to ‘prohibit drivers from seeking to evade civil or criminal liability by escaping before their identity can be established.’”