Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 774 P.2d 811.

34 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Hon. aragon/max Fontes Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Hon. aragon/max Fontes Ariz. 2022
“Proximate cause” exists if the alleged criminal act produced an injury or death “in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause.” Torres, 252 Ariz. at 31 ¶ 12 (quoting Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of Am., Inc., ); –10 (1989).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(proximate-cause instruction given when causation in issue and instruction helpful to jury), P.2d 1046 (1997).6 5 Almaguer also seems to argue he was entitled to a causation instruction because the “cause of death [wa]s a
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
(noting that the “great benefit” for the “sound administration of justice and efficiency in processing murder cases” supports submitting alternate forms of verdict to the jury).
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
(urging trial courts to use alternative verdict forms to facilitate appellate review of first-degree murder convictions for eases submitted to jury on both premeditated and felony-murder theories).
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
overruled on other grounds
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
When a case is submitted to a jury on theories of premeditated and felony murder, it is helpful "to give alternate forms of verdict so the jury may clearly indicate whether neither, one, or both theories apply.”
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
Followed State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
Ct. 2491, 2504, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); , -97 , -28 (1982).
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 34 , 734 P.2d at 576
O'Meara v. Gottsfield 851 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
O'Meara v. Gottsfield 851 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
did not change the substantive rule that it was not error to have one form of verdict for first degree murder even though both premeditation and felony murder were being submitted to the jury.