DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cannon, 755 P.2d 412.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    the supreme court concluded the omission of a burden-shifting instruction entirely was not fundamental error because the jury had been instructed on the State’s general burden of proof.
  • State v. Lua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Lua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See, (declining to find fundamental error because “the elements of self-defense were stated and the jury was instructed that the prosecution had to prove all of its case beyond a reasonable doubt”).
  • State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
    ¶ 24 P.2d 412 (1988), further supports our conclusion.
  • State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    that Hunter has no constitutional basis.
  • State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    the defendant argued that the justification instruction given at his trial had improperly shifted the burden of proof.
  • State v. Dorman 805 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Dorman 805 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1991
    1 *155 In affirming defendant’s conviction, , for the proposition that the trial court need not give a specific instruction on the burden of proving self-defense.
  • State v. Duarte 798 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Duarte 798 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1990
    See, , -320, -1019 (App.1990); -330 , -1339 (App.1990); -357 , -114 (App.1990); see also State v. Burt, 60 Ariz.Adv.Rep.
  • State v. Diaz 803 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Diaz 803 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    Further, a , and was rejected.
  • State v. Ruelas 798 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Ruelas 798 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Barrios 781 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Barrios 781 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    More recently, , the supreme court clarified Hunter by noting that it was that particular sentence that was objectionable and that if the Hunter sentence was not given and the overall instructions made it clear that the state had the burden of proof, then no error occurred.
  • State v. Albrecht 762 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Albrecht 762 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    the supreme court explained Hunter, stating: The language of the self-defense instruction that Hunter found objectionable was the following sentence: “If you decide the defendant’s conduct was justified, you must find the defendant not guilty.” That sentence, the opinion concluded, created the r
  • State v. Tassler 765 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Tassler 765 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988