Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Getz, 944 P.2d 503.

72 citing documents.

State v. Torres Moreno 473 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Torres Moreno 473 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“‘Without consent’ is not defined as occurring because one is under eighteen.”).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
-65 , -07 (1997) (rejecting the argument that defenses in § 13-1407 should be injected into the definition of sexual abuse in § 13-1404).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
-65, -07 (1997) (rejecting the argument that defenses in § 13-1407 should be injected into the definition of sexual abuse in § 13-1404).
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[W]e have an obligation to interpret statutes so as to uphold their constitutionality, where possible,” (citing Business Realty of Ariz., ), and we strongly presume a statute to be constitutional, ().
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Appeal No. 74802-2, -28 (1990) (holding that statute which formed basis for probation revocation was not unconstitutionally vague), n.4 (1997).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Criticized State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
§ 13-1407(B), a defendant may present an affirmative defense, limited to cases in which the victim was fifteen or older, if he can show he “did not know and could not reasonably have known” the victim‟s age.10 ¶19 Finally, we are not persuaded by Falcone‟s suggestion that we should avoid reading these statutes in pari materia based on our supreme court‟s
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Appeal No. 74802-2, 9 P.2d 503 (1997); (statutory language required imposition of lesser sentence for child molester even though result “defies logic”).
State v. Botkin 209 P.3d 137 Ariz. 2009
State v. Botkin 209 P.3d 137 Ariz. 2009
§ 13-917(B) (emphasis added); (“The best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language .
State v. Peek 195 P.3d 641 Ariz. 2008
State v. Peek 195 P.3d 641 Ariz. 2008
(quoting In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, ).
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Minors need protection “because they are deemed too unsophisticated to protect themselves or to consent to sexual activity.” Pima County Juve *415 nile Appeal No. 74802-2
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Patrick James Soriano 176 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Patrick James Soriano 176 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“We do not sit as a second legislature to rewrite laws that may strike us as improvident.” In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, 732 (1990), P.2d 503 (1997).
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-28 , -29 (App.1987), , arguing that because the court held that sexual assault and sexual conduct with a minor are separate offenses which must be charged separately, that is analogous to his argument that molestation is not a lesser included offense of sexual conduct.
State v. Galvez 150 P.3d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Galvez 150 P.3d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante 149 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante 149 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Mejak v. Granville 136 P.3d 874 Ariz. 2006
Mejak v. Granville 136 P.3d 874 Ariz. 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Foreman 118 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Foreman 118 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005