Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Govangreen2 sentences2011See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, ¶ 17 , 185 P.3d 135, 140 (App.2008) (fundamental error argument waived on appeal); State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (court will not ignore fundamental error if found); see also State v. Govan, 154 Ariz. 611, 614-15 , 744 P.2d 712, 715-16 (App.1987) (issue on appeal regarding instruction on lesser-included offense waived when defendant objected to instruction below on different ground). ¶ 5 Sprang further contends the second-degree murder instruction was improper because the evidence did not support it. 2011See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, ¶ 17 , 185 P.3d 135, 140 (App.2008) (fundamental error argument waived on appeal); State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (court will not ignore fundamental error if found); see also State v. Govan, 154 Ariz. 611, 614-15 , 744 P.2d 712, 715-16 (App.1987) (issue on appeal regarding instruction on lesser-included offense waived when defendant objected to instruction below on different ground). ¶ 5 Sprang further contends the second-degree murder instruction was improper because the evidence did not support it. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fernandezgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, ¶ 17 , 185 P.3d 135, 140 (App.2008) (fundamental error argument waived on appeal); State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (court will not ignore fundamental error if found); see also State v. Govan, 154 Ariz. 611, 614-15 , 744 P.2d 712, 715-16 (App.1987) (issue on appeal regarding instruction on lesser-included offense waived when defendant objected to instruction below on different ground). ¶ 5 Sprang further contends the second-degree murder instruction was improper because the evidence did not support it. 2011See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, ¶ 17 , 185 P.3d 135, 140 (App.2008) (fundamental error argument waived on appeal); State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (court will not ignore fundamental error if found); see also State v. Govan, 154 Ariz. 611, 614-15 , 744 P.2d 712, 715-16 (App.1987) (issue on appeal regarding instruction on lesser-included offense waived when defendant objected to instruction below on different ground). ¶ 5 Sprang further contends the second-degree murder instruction was improper because the evidence did not support it. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Moreno-Medranogreen2 sentences2011See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, ¶ 17 , 185 P.3d 135, 140 (App.2008) (fundamental error argument waived on appeal); State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (court will not ignore fundamental error if found); see also State v. Govan, 154 Ariz. 611, 614-15 , 744 P.2d 712, 715-16 (App.1987) (issue on appeal regarding instruction on lesser-included offense waived when defendant objected to instruction below on different ground). ¶ 5 Sprang further contends the second-degree murder instruction was improper because the evidence did not support it. 2011See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, ¶ 17 , 185 P.3d 135, 140 (App.2008) (fundamental error argument waived on appeal); State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (court will not ignore fundamental error if found); see also State v. Govan, 154 Ariz. 611, 614-15 , 744 P.2d 712, 715-16 (App.1987) (issue on appeal regarding instruction on lesser-included offense waived when defendant objected to instruction below on different ground). ¶ 5 Sprang further contends the second-degree murder instruction was improper because the evidence did not support it. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dickensgreen2 sentences1999See State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 23 , 926 P.2d 468, 490 (1996). ¶ 29 Appellant also contends that Vickers, 798 F.2d at 369 , required the trial court to give a second-degree murder instruction to the jury. 1999See State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 23 , 926 P.2d 468, 490 (1996). ¶ 29 Appellant also contends that Vickers, 798 F.2d at 369 , required the trial court to give a second-degree murder instruction to the jury. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kronegreen2 sentences2024See State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564 , 565 ¶ 8 (2001) (“[W]hen a party requests an erroneous instruction, any resulting error is invited and the party waives his right to challenge the instruction on appeal.”); see also Krone, 182 Ariz. at 323 (“A defendant should not have a lesser included instruction forced upon him.”). 1996Krone, 182 Ariz. at 323 , 897 P.2d at 625 . | 1 | 2 |
Robert Wayne Vickers v. James T. Rickettsgreen2 sentences1999See State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 23 , 926 P.2d 468, 490 (1996). ¶ 29 Appellant also contends that Vickers, 798 F.2d at 369 , required the trial court to give a second-degree murder instruction to the jury. 1999In Vickers , the Ninth Circuit held that a judge must give a second-degree murder instruction if “the evidence at trial would have supported a second degree murder conviction.” Id. at 371 (holding a second-degree murder instruction was required because the jury may have believed evidence from a defense expert that Vickers suffered from impulsive aggression as a result of an epileptic disorder). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Millsgreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Mills, 764 N.E.2d 854, 864-65 (Mass. 2002) (reversing larceny conviction even though evidence could have supported a conviction under a theory of larceny by false pretenses because jury was instructed only on elements of traditional larceny). ¶35 The State asserts, in a cursory manner, that “the absence of an instruction” under Subsection A(2) of Section 13-303 “did not prejudice” Bean because “the jury was properly instructed on the elements of second- degree murder.” Noting that the second-degree murder instruction required the jury to find, inter alia, that Bean “caused | 1 | 1 |
State v. Logangreen1 sentence2024See State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564 , 565 ¶ 8 (2001) (“[W]hen a party requests an erroneous instruction, any resulting error is invited and the party waives his right to challenge the instruction on appeal.”); see also Krone, 182 Ariz. at 323 (“A defendant should not have a lesser included instruction forced upon him.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chapplered1 sentence2023See State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281 , 297 n.18 (1983) (stating that an abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision is “not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Riley, 248 Ariz. 154 , 167, ¶ 7 (2020); see also Ariz. R. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Rileygreen1 sentence2023See State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281 , 297 n.18 (1983) (stating that an abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision is “not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Riley, 248 Ariz. 154 , 167, ¶ 7 (2020); see also Ariz. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shumwaygreen1 sentence2017A.R.S. § 13-1104(A)(3); see State v. Rodriguez, 192 Ariz. 58, 61, ¶ 16 (1998) (court need not give every instruction requested by the defense: “The test is whether the [given] instructions adequately set forth the law applicable to the case”). “[N]o proximate cause instruction is required when the instructions in their entirety properly inform the jury of the elements of the offense, including causation . . . a proximate-cause instruction [need not] be given whenever a causation issue is raised.” State v. Almaguer, 232 Ariz. 190 , 197 n.6, ¶ 17 (App. 2013); see also Mott, 187 Ariz. at 546 (pro | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2017A.R.S. § 13-1104(A)(3); see State v. Rodriguez, 192 Ariz. 58, 61, ¶ 16 (1998) (court need not give every instruction requested by the defense: “The test is whether the [given] instructions adequately set forth the law applicable to the case”). “[N]o proximate cause instruction is required when the instructions in their entirety properly inform the jury of the elements of the offense, including causation . . . a proximate-cause instruction [need not] be given whenever a causation issue is raised.” State v. Almaguer, 232 Ariz. 190 , 197 n.6, ¶ 17 (App. 2013); see also Mott, 187 Ariz. at 546 (pro | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mottgreen1 sentence2017A.R.S. § 13-1104(A)(3); see State v. Rodriguez, 192 Ariz. 58, 61, ¶ 16 (1998) (court need not give every instruction requested by the defense: “The test is whether the [given] instructions adequately set forth the law applicable to the case”). “[N]o proximate cause instruction is required when the instructions in their entirety properly inform the jury of the elements of the offense, including causation . . . a proximate-cause instruction [need not] be given whenever a causation issue is raised.” State v. Almaguer, 232 Ariz. 190 , 197 n.6, ¶ 17 (App. 2013); see also Mott, 187 Ariz. at 546 (pro | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuelgreen2 sentences2016State v. Manuel, 229 Ariz. 1, 6, ¶ 24 , 270 P.3d 828, 833 (2011). 2016State v. Manuel, 229 Ariz. 1, 6, ¶ 24 , 270 P.3d 828, 833 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salazargreen2 sentences1999State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 408 , 844 P.2d 566, 575 (1992). ¶ 15 The trial court properly concluded that, under these facts, a second-degree murder instruction would be inappropriate. 3 We find no error. 1999State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 408 , 844 P.2d 566, 575 (1992). ¶ 15 The trial court properly concluded that, under these facts, a second-degree murder instruction would be inappropriate. 3 We find no error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grilzgreen2 sentences1985Compare State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450 , 666 P.2d 1059 (1983); with State v. Barrett, 132 Ariz. 88 , 644 P.2d 242 (1982) (whether specific finding of dangerousness is required depends upon whether the second degree murder instruction required a finding of dangerousness). 1985Compare State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450 , 666 P.2d 1059 (1983); with State v. Barrett, 132 Ariz. 88 , 644 P.2d 242 (1982) (whether specific finding of dangerousness is required depends upon whether the second degree murder instruction required a finding of dangerousness). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ariasgreen1 sentence1985See, e.g., State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. *447 441, 443-44, 641 P.2d 1285, 1287-88 (1982); State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 150, 168 , 624 P.2d 828, 846 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 882 , 102 S.Ct. 364 , 70 L.Ed.2d 191 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pittmangreen2 sentences1984The trial court gave the murder instruction from Recommended Arizona Jury Instruction, Crimes 4, Murder; see State v. Pittman, 118 Ariz. 71, 73 , 574 P.2d 1290 -93 (1978) (for identical and complete instruction). 1984The trial court gave the murder instruction from Recommended Arizona Jury Instruction, Crimes 4, Murder; see State v. Pittman, 118 Ariz. 71, 73 , 574 P.2d 1290 -93 (1978) (for identical and complete instruction). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Canion
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer
green
1 sentence2017A.R.S. § 13-1104(A)(3); see State v. Rodriguez, 192 Ariz. 58, 61, ¶ 16 (1998) (court need not give every instruction requested by the defense: “The test is whether the [given] instructions adequately set forth the law applicable to the case”). “[N]o proximate cause instruction is required when the instructions in their entirety properly inform the jury of the elements of the offense, including causation . . . a proximate-cause instruction [need not] be given whenever a causation issue is raised.” State v. Almaguer, 232 Ariz. 190 , 197 n.6, ¶ 17 (App. 2013); see also Mott, 187 Ariz. at 546 (pro | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Schad v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1999Moreover, the Court’s primary concern in Beck “was that a jury convinced that the defendant had committed some violent crime but not convinced that he was guilty of a capital crime might nonetheless vote for a capital conviction if the only alternative was to set the defendant free with no punishment at all.” Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 646 , 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). *423 This trial court adhered to the mandate of Beck and Schad by giving jury instructions about the lesser offenses of kidnaping and sexual assault. 1999Moreover, the Court’s primary concern in Beck “was that a jury convinced that the defendant had committed some violent crime but not convinced that he was guilty of a capital crime might nonetheless vote for a capital conviction if the only alternative was to set the defendant free with no punishment at all.” Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 646 , 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). *423 This trial court adhered to the mandate of Beck and Schad by giving jury instructions about the lesser offenses of kidnaping and sexual assault. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Beck v. Alabama
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Vickers
green
2 sentences1994In rejecting a claim that the evidence justified the giving of a second degree murder instruction, we said that "the evidence showed that the killing was a deliberate and reflective act and could only be first degree murder." Id. at 513 , 633 P.2d at 322 . 1994In rejecting a claim that the evidence justified the giving of a second degree murder instruction, we said that "the evidence showed that the killing was a deliberate and reflective act and could only be first degree murder." Id. at 513 , 633 P.2d at 322 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Greenawalt
green
2 sentences1985See, e.g., State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. *447 441, 443-44, 641 P.2d 1285, 1287-88 (1982); State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 150, 168 , 624 P.2d 828, 846 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 882 , 102 S.Ct. 364 , 70 L.Ed.2d 191 (1981). 1985See, e.g., State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. *447 441, 443-44, 641 P.2d 1285, 1287-88 (1982); State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 150, 168 , 624 P.2d 828, 846 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 882 , 102 S.Ct. 364 , 70 L.Ed.2d 191 (1981). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Barrett
green
2 sentences1985Compare State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450 , 666 P.2d 1059 (1983); with State v. Barrett, 132 Ariz. 88 , 644 P.2d 242 (1982) (whether specific finding of dangerousness is required depends upon whether the second degree murder instruction required a finding of dangerousness). 1985Compare State v. Grilz, 136 Ariz. 450 , 666 P.2d 1059 (1983); with State v. Barrett, 132 Ariz. 88 , 644 P.2d 242 (1982) (whether specific finding of dangerousness is required depends upon whether the second degree murder instruction required a finding of dangerousness). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Curley v. Curley
green
1 sentence1985See, e.g., State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. *447 441, 443-44, 641 P.2d 1285, 1287-88 (1982); State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 150, 168 , 624 P.2d 828, 846 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 882 , 102 S.Ct. 364 , 70 L.Ed.2d 191 (1981). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Johnson v. Florida
green
2 sentences1985See, e.g., State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. *447 441, 443-44, 641 P.2d 1285, 1287-88 (1982); State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 150, 168 , 624 P.2d 828, 846 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 882 , 102 S.Ct. 364 , 70 L.Ed.2d 191 (1981). 1985See, e.g., State v. Arias, 131 Ariz. *447 441, 443-44, 641 P.2d 1285, 1287-88 (1982); State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 150, 168 , 624 P.2d 828, 846 , cert. denied 454 U.S. 882 , 102 S.Ct. 364 , 70 L.Ed.2d 191 (1981). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.