Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Detrich, 873 P.2d 1302.

44 citing documents.

State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 39 (App. 2001) (); see Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Perez Agueda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Perez Agueda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sufficient evidence supports a lesser-included instruction if “the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.”
State v. Sutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Heard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Heard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(noting the conditional nature of the flight instruction, as well as the fact that “the jury was instructed to disregard any instructions they found not to apply after they had determined the facts.”); (“The flight instruction—even assuming it was improper—[did] not rise to the level of fundamental error.”).
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-63, -34 (1997) and the court determined that a witness’s testimony of 4 STATE v. MENDOZA Opinion of the Court “humping” was sufficient evidence of sexual contact to support the defendant’s conviction for sexual abuse
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
§ 13-1304 so as to elevate the unlawful imprisonment to kidnapping.’” Hargrave, 234 P.3d at 580
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
§ 13-1304 so as to elevate the unlawful imprisonment to kidnapping.” ¶ 24
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Distinguished State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
466 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991), , in support of their respective positions.
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
To determine whether sufficient evidence existed to require a lesser-included offense instruction, the court must examine “whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” ( overruled on other grounds, P.2d 754 (1990)).
State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
To determine whether the evidence requires giving of theft as a lesser included offense of armed robbery, “the test is ‘whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’ ” Krone, 182 Ariz. at 323 , 897 P.2d at 625 ( , (Detrich I)) (quoting State v. (Vivian Rhea) Noriega, , , 28 n. 7, , 757 n. 7 (1990)).
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
For example, , the tidal court declared a mistrial after one of the state’s witnesses had improperly testified that the defendant had invoked his right to remain silent.
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
at 2389; , (lesser included instruction should be given if “ ‘the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense’”) ( , ).
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
In determining if evidence is sufficient to require a lesser-included instruction, “the test is ‘whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’ ” , (citation omitted).
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
“To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” Krone, 182 Ariz. at 323 , 897 P.2d at 625 (internal quotation omitted) ( , ).
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
“To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is “whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’” , , (1994) ( , ).
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995