Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. LeBlanc, 924 P.2d 441.

132 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
440, 444 (1996) (stating that a “jury may deliberate on a lesser offense if it either (1) finds the defendant not guilty on the greater charge, or (2) after reasonable efforts cannot agree whether to acquit or convict on that charge,” and directing trial courts to give this “’reasonable effort
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Veseli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Veseli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A “jury may deliberate on a lesser offense if it either (1) finds the defendant not guilty on the greater charge, or (2) after reasonable efforts cannot agree whether to acquit or convict on that charge.”
State v. Sovine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sovine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(stating that jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions).
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bassett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bassett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Gusler, ¶¶ 18-23, 18 P.3d at 705-06; cf. Brazzel v. Washington, 491 F.3d 976, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Genuine deadlock is fundamentally different from a situation in which jurors are instructed that if they 2 P.2d 441 (1996).
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
the court then told the jurors they must not consider the lesser manslaughter offense unless they either acquitted Eddington of the greater offense of second-degree murder or were unable to reach a verdict after deliberation.
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
¶74 This Court disapproved such an “acquittal-first” -39, -43 (1996).
State of Arizona v. Robert Carlos Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Robert Carlos Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶5 however, the supreme court questioned the premise of the Wussler decision that it was necessary to “micromanage” jury discussions and deliberations.
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
the supreme court adopted a "reasonable efforts” instruction, which allows jurors to consider a lesser-included offense if, after full and careful consideration of the facts, they cannot agree whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty on the charged offense.
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
We first note that “jurors are presumed to follow instructions.”
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
With respect to May’s challenge to the jury instruction on lesser-included offenses, however, we encourage the trial court to instruct the jury in accordance with the “better practice”
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
See Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000)
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
(citations omitted); , (citation omitted) (stating that jury is presumed to follow its instructions).
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003