Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wall, 126 P.3d 148.
-
State v. Raimonde
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A court is required to instruct and provide verdict forms only on “necessarily included offenses.” ¶¶ 13-14, Ariz. R. Crim.
- State v. Ketchner 339 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2014
- State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner Ariz. 2014
-
State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner
Ariz. 2014
We review the trial court’s ruling permitting this testimony for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 14, which can include an error of law, ¶ 12
-
State v. Ketchner
339 P.3d 645
Ariz. 2014
We review the trial court’s ruling permitting this testimony for an abuse of discretion, , 544 ¶ 14, which can include an error of law, , 3 ¶ 12
- State of Arizona v. Eslyn Adrian Villa 335 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- State of Arizona v. Eslyn Adrian Villa 335 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Garcia
334 P.3d 1286
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Court has held that: (1) robbery is a lesser-included offense of armed robbery, (2) theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery, –4 ¶ 15, –51 (2006); see also State v. Y
- State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Delgado
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
If ‘each provision requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not,’ they are not the same offense.”) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)); ¶ 4, (“An offense is ’lesser included’ when the ‘greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily 7 “The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from multiple prosecutions for the same offense.” ¶ 27
- State of Arizona v. Raymond Anthony Hall 322 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-
State of Arizona v. Raymond Anthony Hall
322 P.3d 191
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
constitute an abuse of discretion.”
- State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney
312 P.3d 134
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“‘An offense is lesser included when the greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense.’” (emphasis added)
- State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin
310 P.3d 990
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
P., requires the trial court to instruct the jury on “all offenses necessarily included in the offense charged.” “Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a ‘lesser included’ offense is not always a ‘necessarily included’ offense for purposes of Rule 23.3.”
- State v. Doty 307 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
State v. Doty
307 P.3d 69
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 12 , (“An error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may ...
- State v. Breed 286 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
State v. Breed
286 P.3d 806
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 17 , (requiring sufficient evidence to support a lesser-included instruction).
- State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
-
State v. Isiah Patterson
283 P.3d 1
Ariz. 2012
¶ 12, (reviewing denial of lesser included offense instruction for abuse of discretion).
- State v. Gipson 277 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2012
-
State v. Gipson
277 P.3d 189
Ariz. 2012
“In general the trial judge should withhold 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 v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
- State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
- State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
-
State v. Hargrave
234 P.3d 569
Ariz. 2010
¶ 18, (not requiring lesser-included offense instruction for - 15 - robbery serving as the predicate for felony murder in a capital case).
- State v. Geeslin 225 P.3d 1129 Ariz. 2010
-
State v. Geeslin
225 P.3d 1129
Ariz. 2010
instruct the jurors on all offenses ‘necessarily included’ in the offense charged.” ¶ 13
- State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
- State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
- State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶9 A lesser-included offense “must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.”
- State v. Nichols 195 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-
State v. Nichols
195 P.3d 207
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
de novo.” Harrod, , 183 P.3d at 530 ; , (abuse of discretion includes “[a]n error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion.”).
- State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“‘To constitute a lesser-included offense, the offense must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime as charged without having committed the lesser one.’”), (“An offense is ‘lesser included’ when the ‘greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense.’”), (test to dete
- State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
8 530; (abuse of discretion includes “[a]n error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion.”).
- State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
-
State v. Cheramie
189 P.3d 374
Ariz. 2008
¶ 18, (requiring lesser-included offense instruction when evidence supports conviction of lesser-included offense); (finding no - 4 - prejudicial error when indict
- State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
- State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶¶ 9-13, -39 (App. 1998).