Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mott, 931 P.2d 1046.

212 citing documents.

State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
§ 13-502, 2 a defendant could be found legally insane if, at the time of the criminal act, he had “(1) [s]uch a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or (2)[i]f he did know [the nature and quality of the act], that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” Corley, 108 Ariz. at 242 n. 1, 495 P.2d at 472 n. 1; , cert.
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
The testimony thus permitted the jury to decide “on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.” , see also Bennett v. PRC Public Sector, Inc., 931 F.Supp.
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-84 , -98 (1997); , Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
cert, denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct.
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997