Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Minnitt, 55 P.3d 774.

42 citing documents.

State v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2025
Murphy-Logue v. Hon. steinlage/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Murphy-Logue v. Hon. steinlage/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
–39, ¶¶ 29–35 (2002); –93, ¶¶ 4–11 (2000); Pool, 139 Ariz. at 108–09.
Moreno Meza v. Hon lafave/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Moreno Meza v. Hon lafave/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; ¶ 27 (2002).
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
9 STATE v. RICCI Decision of the Court ¶31 “The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from multiple prosecutions for the same offense.” ¶ 27 (2002).
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(internal quotation omitted); ¶ 41 (2002) (“[A] prosecutor has an obligation not only to prosecute with diligence, but to 11 STATE v. ARIAS Opinion of the Court seek justice” and “must refrain from all use of improper methods designed solely t
Barnes v. Bernini 426 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Barnes v. Bernini 426 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Although the claim may also be raised on appeal after retrial, see State v. Minnitt , , ¶ 24, special-action review is appropriate "[b]ecause the Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees the right to be free from subsequent prosecution" and, if applicable, "the clause is violated by the mere commencement of retrial."
State v. Dickinson 393 P.3d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dickinson 393 P.3d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 12 “As a general rule, if the defendant successfully moves for or consents to a mistrial, retrial is not barred on double jeopardy grounds.” ¶ 28
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶18 “The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from multiple prosecutions for the same offense.” ¶ 27, (citation omitted).
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-39, ¶¶ 29-35 , -82 (2002); -93, ¶¶ 4-11 , -80 (2000); Pool, 139 Ariz. at 108-09 , 677 P.2d at 271-72 .
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ame offense.”) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)); ¶ 4, (“An offense is ’lesser included’ when the ‘greater offense cannot be committed without necessarily 7 “The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from multiple prosecutions for the same offense.” ¶ 27, U.S. Const. amend.
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
¶21 P.3d 774 (2002), to argue that double jeopardy prevents him from being resentenced to death because his convictions were obtained by intentional prosecutorial misconduct.
Dennis Brodsky v. State of Arizona 189 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Dennis Brodsky v. State of Arizona 189 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
“The double jeopardy protections extended by the Arizona Constitution are 1 coextensive with those provided by its federal counterpart.” n.2, n.2 (App. 2006)
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Haywood Securities, Inc. v. Ehrlich 149 P.3d 738 Ariz. 2007
Haywood Securities, Inc. v. Ehrlich 149 P.3d 738 Ariz. 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
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
Thus, Moody relies on the only case in which double jeopardy protections have been applied in the absence of a motion for a mistrial:
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
¶¶ 44-45, 5 C. ¶18 The State Bar eventually charged Peasley with five counts of misconduct.
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
Pool v. Superior Court (State)
Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
See State v. Minnitt, ___ Ariz. ___, Pool v. Superior Court (State), P.2d 261 (1984).