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. HERRERA, SR., 859 P.2d 119.

35 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
  • State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
    Id.; (“[T]he defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.” ()).
  • State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
  • State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
    (explaining that the state must only prove the elements of the crime, and a defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the “precise manner in which the act was committed” ()).
  • State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    West, 238 Ariz. at 494, ¶ 38.
  • State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    The jury therefore must be unanimous “‘on whether the criminal act charged has been committed.’” -97, -28 (1982).
  • State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
    (holding kidnapping and murder were two distinct acts and did not merge where victim was ordered to lie on the grounds and then shot moments later).
  • State v. Motten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Motten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    –16, –26 (1993) (holding A.R.S.
  • State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    ¶ 16 , (citing cases); -16 , -26 (1993) (upholding kidnapping conviction where jury instructions allowed guilty verdict without unanimity as to the kidnapper’s purpose, which could include, among other things, the intent to inflict physical injury or intent to interfere with the performance of a governmental function).
  • State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    This is consistent with our supreme court’s , that jurors need not unanimously agree on the specific intent the defendant had in committing the offense because “kidnapping is one crime, regardless of whether it occurs as a result of a knowing restraint with the intent to inflict physical injury or with the intent to interfere with
  • State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    As the trial court correctly noted, “although a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.” , (-97 , -28 (1982)).
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    in which the act was committed.” (citation omitted); see also Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 49-51, 112 S. Ct. 466, 469-70, 12 116 L. Ed. 2d 371, 376-77 (1991); Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 629-30, 111 S. Ct. 2491, 2496, 115 L. Ed. 2d 555, 563-64 (1991); Peña, 104 P.3d at 876.
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    (a defendant is entitled to a unanimous verdict regarding whether an offense has been committed but is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner that an offense was committed).
  • State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    Kelly, 149 Ariz. at 117 , 716 P.2d at 1054 .
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993