discussed Cited "see" State v. Virgo See State v. Hurley, 154 Ariz. 124, 128-29 , 741 P.2d 257, 261-62 (1987) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), for proposition that State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute a crime), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1028 , 108 S.Ct. 756 , 98 L.Ed.2d 768 (1988).

cited Cited "see" United States v. Thomas S. Orr See United States v. Cox, 826 F.2d 1518, 1524 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1028 , 108 S.Ct. 756 , 98 L.Ed.2d 768 (1988).

discussed Cited "see" Michael Allan Durosko v. Samuel A. Lewis Arizona Attorney General See State v. Hurley, 154 Ariz. 124 , 741 P.2d 257, 261 (1987), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 756 , 98 L.Ed.2d 768 (1988) (stating former standard and raising the standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence on the basis of the state constitution).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Karen Cameron (2×) See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 826 F.2d 1518, 1522-1523 (6th Cir.1987) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1028 , 108 S.Ct. 756 , 98 L.Ed.2d 768 (1988). 28 Under our view of the facts of this case the question is not whether the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant relief for her failure to give notice under Rule 12.2(a) altogether; the question is whether, under the unique facts of this case, the district court incorrectly failed to recognize that appellant satisfied Rule 12.2(a)'s notice requirement at a stage of the proceedings which the court should have deeme…