Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Eagle, 994 P.2d 395.

86 citing documents.

State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
V; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; ¶ 5, (federal and Arizona Double Jeopardy Clauses generally provide same protections).
State of Arizona v. Shawnte Shuree Jones 334 P.3d 191 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawnte Shuree Jones 334 P.3d 191 Ariz. 2014
However, “when statutes describe different offenses, consecutive sentences are permissible without implicating the prohibition against double jeopardy.” ¶ 6
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 27, (emphasis in original) (citations omitted), aff’d, P.2d 395 (2000).
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
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
The state and federal double jeopardy clauses provide that a person may not “be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” ¶ 5
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶ 15; (reduction of felony class for release of victim in kidnapping statute “is a mitigating factor relevant solely for sentencing purposes,” not element of offense).
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
“[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)
State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
But two offenses are not the same if “ ‘each [offense] requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.’” , quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct.
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
Although not dispositive, “the - 6 - fact that the state accepted other [minority] jurors on the venire is indicative of a nondiscriminatory motive.” ¶ 12, aff’d, P.2d 395 (2000).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser 105 P.3d 1158 Ariz. 2005
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser 105 P.3d 1158 Ariz. 2005
Although “where an ambiguity exists the title may be used to aid in the interpretation of the statute,” ¶ 7, section 13-702.02 is not ambiguous.
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
declining in the circumstances presented to apply to the state clause the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the corresponding federal clause, ¶ 5 , suggesting, without analysis, that the protections offered by the two clauses are coterminous.
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
§ 13-1304, defines “a single crime known as kidnapping.”
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
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
The State responded that, , , cert.
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
2536, 2540 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425, 432-33 (1984); , , , cert.
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶23 , (Feldman, L, concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting that "due process may still require the state to bear the burden of disproving a factor that reduces or justifies a crime”).
State v. Lucas 18 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Lucas 18 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001