Cited by

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

216 citing documents.

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
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