Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wall, 126 P.3d 148.

214 citing documents.

State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Pogue-Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–4, ¶ 15 (2006) (theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery); (same); (same); (same); –73 (App. 1981) (same).
State v. Pogue-Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 20 (2006) (explaining that we must look to the intent of the accomplice to aid the main actor, not the intent of the main actor).
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Criticized State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
An abuse of discretion occurs if the court makes an error of law, ¶ 12 (2006), or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary for its decision
State v. Agboghidi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Agboghidi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos-Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos-Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶¶ 13- 14 (2006); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 30 As Carson points out, case law regarding instructions for lesser-included offenses supports our conclusion, ¶¶ 29-31 , -62 , -61 (App. 1992).
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 18, (citation omitted) (“[T]he evidence must be such that a rational juror could conclude that the defendant committed only the lesser offense.”).
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
To be entitled to the lesser-included molestation instruction for counts 1, 3, and 8, though, “the evidence must be such that a rational juror could conclude that defendant committed only the lesser offense.” ¶ 18 (2006).
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶10 A trial court is required to instruct only on “necessarily included offenses.” ¶¶ 13–14 (2006); Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
“An error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may, however, constitute an abuse of discretion.” Busso– 3 ¶ 5, ( ¶ 12, ).
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. mroz/state 364 P.3d 472 Ariz. 2015
Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. mroz/state 364 P.3d 472 Ariz. 2015
“An error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may, however, constitute an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 12
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“[A]n offense is ‘necessarily included,’ and so requires that a jury instruction be given, only when it is lesser included and the evidence is sufficient to support giving the instruction.” (emphasis omitted).
State v. Hassan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hassan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
See Gipson, 229 Ariz. at 486 ¶ 14 n.2, 277 P.3d at 191 n.2 (“An offense is necessarily included ‘when it is lesser included’ and ‘the facts of the case as presented at trial are such that a jury could reasonably find that only the elements of a lesser offense have been proved.’” ( ¶ 14, )).
State of Arizona v. Angelica Marlene Werderman 350 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Angelica Marlene Werderman 350 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 12, (internal citation omitted).
State v. Multari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Multari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[A]n offense is ‘necessarily included,’ and so requires that a jury instruction be given, only when it is lesser included and the evidence is sufficient to support giving the instruction.” ¶ 14
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014