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