green
Positive treatment
8.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Aguilar
As background for its analysis, the court explained that for most of Arizona’s history, first degree murder explicitly required proof of “premeditation,” i.e., “a plan to murder was formed after the matter had been made a subject of deliberation and reflection.” Id. at 476, ¶ 16, 65 P.3d at 425 (quoting State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 352 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1279 (1976)). ¶ 18 Because premeditation involves a defendant’s thought processes, over the years, the courts attempted to describe what type of evidence could show premeditation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Thompson
(2×)
See Macias, 36 Ariz. at 149 , 283 P. at 714-15 ("In order that a killing shall be murder in the first degree ... it must be shown that a plan to murder was formed after the matter had been made a subject of deliberation and reflection...."); State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 352 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1279 (1976) (upholding a jury instruction that read "[i]n order to find a deliberate and premeditated killing you must find more reflection on the part of the defendant than is involved in the mere formation of the specific intent to kill"). ¶ 17 Because premeditation involves a defendant's thought proce…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ramirez
(2×)
Under the pre-1978 code, the supreme court upheld the following jury instruction on premeditation: “In order to find a deliberate and premeditated killing you must find more reflection on the part of the defendant than is involved in the mere formation of the specific intent to kill.” State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 352 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1279 (1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Schurz
State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 353 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1280 (1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Walton
State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 352 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1279 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Vickers
The record must affirmatively show that the defendant did, in fact, consent to the introduction of this evidence. “ * * * To allow this information to be admitted without defendant’s consent would have a chilling effect on the honest and free flow of information between the doctor and patient while the patient is being examined as to his competency to stand trial.” State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 351 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1278 (1976). (emphasis supplied) *511 If Spillman had been a psychiatrist and was examining defendant for competency, the privilege would apply.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lawrence
State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 353 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1280 (1976); State v. Duke, 110 Ariz. 320, 326 , 518 P.2d 570, 576 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Diesing
(Cf. People v. Hicks, 44 Ill. 2d 550, 553 (1970).) The rule of Miranda has been held to apply to interrogation by a parole officer (United States v. Deaton, 468 F. 2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1972)), and to the questioning of a probationer by his probation officer (State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1276 (1976)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Blackwell
(2×)
See State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345 , 554 P.2d 1272 (1976) (error to permit defendant’s probation officer to testify concerning in-custody statements made to him by defendant in absence of Miranda warnings in prosecution for new offense); State v. Evans, 77 Wis.2d 225 , 252 N.W.2d 664, 668-69 (1977) (“upon timely objection ... the testimony of ... a parole[e] given in response to questions by ... parole agent or at a ... parole revocation hearing, which questions are prompted by pending charges or accusations of particular criminal activity, or any evidence derived from such testimony, is in…
discussed
Cited "see"
Bobby Reed Magby v. Donald Wawrzaszek and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona
(2×)
See 113 Ariz. at 348-49 , 554 P.2d at 1275-76 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sanchez
(2×)
See State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345 , 554 P.2d 1272 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Willis
(2×)
See also State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 349 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1276 (1976); Annot., What Constitutes "Custodial Interrogation" Within Rule of Miranda v Arizona Requiring That Suspect Be Informed of His Federal Constitutional Rights Before Custodial Interrogation, 31 A.L.R.3d 565 , § 28[a], at 672-73 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ashelman
(2×)
See State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981); See also State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 353 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1280 (1976); State v. Cabrera, 114 Ariz. 233, 236 , 560 P.2d 417, 420 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ashelman
(2×)
See State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981); See also State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 353 , 554 P.2d 1272, 1280 (1976); State v. Cabrera, 114 Ariz. 233, 236 , 560 P.2d 417, 420 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Morales
(2×)
See also State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345 , 554 P.2d 1272 (1976) stating: “Whether the intoxication negated the malice and reduced the crime from murder to manslaughter is a question of fact to be determined by the jury.” 113 Ariz. at 353 , 554 P.2d at 1280 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE of Arizona, Appellant,
v.
Tony A. MARTINEZ and Andrew E. Garcia, Appellees
v.
Tony A. MARTINEZ and Andrew E. Garcia, Appellees
3518-PR.
Arizona Supreme Court.
Sep 7, 1976.
Dennis DeConcini, Pima County Atty. by John W. Dickinson, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, for appellant., Scott W. Schlievert, Tucson, for appellee Martinez., Healy & Beal, P.C. by Robert L. Beal, Jr., Tucson, for appellee Garcia.
Cameron, Struckmeyer, Hays, Holohan, Gordon.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
CAMERON, Chief Justice.
Petition for review granted. The opinion of the Court of Appeals as reported in 26 Ariz.App. 210, 547 P.2d 62 (1976) is approved and adopted as the opinion of this court.
STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and HAYS, HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur.