Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Zmich, 770 P.2d 776.

63 citing documents.

State v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(defining premeditation as a “length of time permitting reflection”); , (same); , (same); , (same); , (same)
State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
To be competent to offer an opinion on sanity, “a lay witness must have had an opportunity to observe the past conduct and history of a defendant.”
State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Defendant, , argues that we must view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.
State of Arizona v. Sullivan 931 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State of Arizona v. Sullivan 931 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
FACTS Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, , the facts are as follows.
State v. Ovind 924 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Ovind 924 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
BACKGROUND The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, , shows that Hummer was arrested in August 1992, after more than one year of sexual behavior with four boys.
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Maldonado 889 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Maldonado 889 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Witwer 856 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Witwer 856 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
The evidence relevant to this issue, taken in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, , was that appellant had been drinking and had a blood alcohol level of between .28 and .30 percent at the time of the collision.
State v. Luque 829 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Luque 829 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
The facts, viewed in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, State v. *274 Zmich, , are as follows.
State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
FACTS In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, , the facts are as follows.
State v. Maximo 821 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Maximo 821 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Morales 824 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991