Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lopez, 762 P.2d 545.

36 citing documents.

State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Although we stated in Lopez, ‘[w]hen the use of force and the taking of property are not contemporaneous, there may be a theft, but there is not a robbery,’ we did not intend to suggest that when a person uses force with the intent to take another’s property he has not committed robbery.” (alteration in original) ().
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
5 (“Because the requested instruction did not fit the facts of the case, it was not error to refuse it.”).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Even if we accept the state’s argument, we nevertheless must decide whether third-degree burglary may be a predicate offense for felony murder because we will reverse a conviction that “may have been based, in whole or in part, on [an] impermissible felony murder theory.” (reversing conviction potentially based on felony-murder theory for which record showed insufficient evidence to convict).
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
at 365, 728 P.2d at 235; (“[T]he robbery statute requires the coexistence of an intent to commit a robbery with the use of force.
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 11 Large’s , , is misplaced.
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
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. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
there is not a robbery.” , ( , ).
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. (George Villegas) Lopez
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(if two theories of guilt submitted to jury and one is improper, we must reverse); -44, -03 (App. 1994) (same).
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
For these reasons, , where this court overturned a robbery conviction because of insufficient evidence.
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
“[T]he trial court has no duty to direct an acquittal where there is substantial evidence that a defendant has committed the crime charged,” , and “[ujnless there is a complete absence of probative evidence to support a particular finding, it is appropriate to submit the issue to the jury.”
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
Defendant’s , is misplaced.
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989