Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Arnett, 760 P.2d 1064.

35 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-19 (1988) (finding indictment gave sufficient notice even though defendant did not learn the state’s theories of prosecution until day of trial).
State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Koryor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Koryor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“There is no requirement that the defendant receive notice of how the State will prove his responsibility for the alleged offense.”) ().
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“There is no requirement that the defendant receive notice of how the State will prove his responsibility for the alleged offense.”).
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
the Court found adequate notice when the state mentioned the predicate felony on the first day of trial, “giving defense counsel a reasonable chance to rebut the allegation.” Blakley, 204 Ariz. at 439 ¶ 50, 65 P.3d at 87.
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
Although the state may not change its - 30 - theory of the case after the close of evidence, nothing requires “that the defendant receive notice of how the State will prove his responsibility for the alleged offense.”
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.2d 1064 (1988) (in prosecution for first-degree murder, defendant given adequate notice when he learned on first day of trial that state would proceed on both premeditated and felony murder theories); cf. Blakley, ¶¶ 53-56, ¶¶ 53-56 (defendant, indicted for first-degree murder on f
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
¶ 48 According to the state, this court has consistently held that “[tjhere is no requirement that the defendant receive notice of how the State will prove his responsibility for the alleged offense.” , ( , ).
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989