10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 1 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. Portillogreen2 sentences2003A. ¶ 48 Lamar contends the trial court's instruction explaining the State's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which tracked the language we approved of in State v. Portillo, 182 Ariz. 592, 596 , 898 P.2d 970, 974 (1995), is constitutionally deficient. [8] Specifically, Lamar asserts that the Portillo instruction, by using the phrase "firmly convinced," equates the beyond a reasonable doubt standard with a clear and convincing evidence standard, thereby lessening the State's burden. 2003A. ¶ 48 Lamar contends the trial court's instruction explaining the State's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which tracked the language we approved of in State v. Portillo, 182 Ariz. 592, 596 , 898 P.2d 970, 974 (1995), is constitutionally deficient. [8] Specifically, Lamar asserts that the Portillo instruction, by using the phrase "firmly convinced," equates the beyond a reasonable doubt standard with a clear and convincing evidence standard, thereby lessening the State's burden. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Turrentinegreen2 sentences2002See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 423 , 763 P.2d 239, 243 (1988) (“[A] ‘firm belief or conviction’ is truer to the clear and convincing standard____”) (citing State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 68 , 730 P.2d 238, 245 (App.1986) (“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.”)). 2002See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 423 , 763 P.2d 239, 243 (1988) (“[A] ‘firm belief or conviction’ is truer to the clear and convincing standard____”) (citing State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 68 , 730 P.2d 238, 245 (App.1986) (“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.”)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2002See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 423 , 763 P.2d 239, 243 (1988) (“[A] ‘firm belief or conviction’ is truer to the clear and convincing standard____”) (citing State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 68 , 730 P.2d 238, 245 (App.1986) (“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.”)). 2002See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 423 , 763 P.2d 239, 243 (1988) (“[A] ‘firm belief or conviction’ is truer to the clear and convincing standard____”) (citing State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 68 , 730 P.2d 238, 245 (App.1986) (“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the issue sought to be proved.”)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Minceygreen2 sentences1986In holding RAJI 4.01 constituted fundamental rather than merely reversible error, our supreme court relied on its earlier decision in State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 398 , 636 P.2d 637, 646 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 , 102 S.Ct. 1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982), for the proposition that [i]t is not a defendant’s responsibility to introduce reasonable doubt as to an element of a crime. 1986In holding RAJI 4.01 constituted fundamental rather than merely reversible error, our supreme court relied on its earlier decision in State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 398 , 636 P.2d 637, 646 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 , 102 S.Ct. 1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982), for the proposition that [i]t is not a defendant’s responsibility to introduce reasonable doubt as to an element of a crime. | 2 | 2 |
Drury v. Burrgreen1 sentence2026See Drury v. Burr, 107 Ariz. 124, 125 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Guardianship of J.C.D.green1 sentence2008But see In re Guardianship of J.C.D., 686 N.W.2d 647 , 648- *161 49, ¶¶4, 8-10 (S.D.2004) (finding that the Act was applicable to a permanent guardianship proceeding because, although "clearly not a termination proceeding” under the Act, it fell within the definition of a “foster care placement”). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hunter
green
2 sentences1986Or the jury might have thought that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt instruction applied only to the state’s ‘case against the defendant’ and that the wording of the self-defense instruction indicated that the self-defense issue was simply not part of the state’s case that the state had to prove. 142 Ariz. 88, 90 , 688 P.2d 980, 982 . 1986Or the jury might have thought that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt instruction applied only to the state’s ‘case against the defendant’ and that the wording of the self-defense instruction indicated that the self-defense issue was simply not part of the state’s case that the state had to prove. 142 Ariz. 88, 90 , 688 P.2d 980, 982 . | 2 | 1986–2008 |
Mefford v. United States
green
2 sentences1986In holding RAJI 4.01 constituted fundamental rather than merely reversible error, our supreme court relied on its earlier decision in State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 398 , 636 P.2d 637, 646 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 , 102 S.Ct. 1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982), for the proposition that [i]t is not a defendant’s responsibility to introduce reasonable doubt as to an element of a crime. 1984Rather, it is the state’s responsibility to prove the element beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 398 , 636 P.2d 637, 646 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 , 102 S.Ct. 1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982) (in Mincey we held it was fundamental error to give an instruction that improperly shifted to the defendant the burden of proof on the issue of intent). | 2 | 1984–1986 |
Hatch v. Idaho
green
2 sentences1986In holding RAJI 4.01 constituted fundamental rather than merely reversible error, our supreme court relied on its earlier decision in State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 398 , 636 P.2d 637, 646 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 , 102 S.Ct. 1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982), for the proposition that [i]t is not a defendant’s responsibility to introduce reasonable doubt as to an element of a crime. 1984Rather, it is the state’s responsibility to prove the element beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 398 , 636 P.2d 637, 646 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 , 102 S.Ct. 1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982) (in Mincey we held it was fundamental error to give an instruction that improperly shifted to the defendant the burden of proof on the issue of intent). | 2 | 1984–1986 |
Morris v. Virginia
green
2 sentences1986In holding RAJI 4.01 constituted fundamental rather than merely reversible error, our supreme court relied on its earlier decision in State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 398 , 636 P.2d 637, 646 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 , 102 S.Ct. 1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982), for the proposition that [i]t is not a defendant’s responsibility to introduce reasonable doubt as to an element of a crime. 1984Rather, it is the state’s responsibility to prove the element beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 398 , 636 P.2d 637, 646 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 , 102 S.Ct. 1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982) (in Mincey we held it was fundamental error to give an instruction that improperly shifted to the defendant the burden of proof on the issue of intent). | 2 | 1984–1986 |
State v. Renforth
green
2 sentences2006In this case, the jury instructions complied with precedent in defining clear and convincing as “highly probable.” The judge also instructed that the clear and convincing standard is lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof, thereby establishing the relative positions of the standards. ¶ 76 Roque cites State v. Renforth, 155 Ariz. 385 , 746 P.2d 1315 (App.1987), for the proposition that erroneous jury instructions constitute fundamental error. 2006In this case, the jury instructions complied with precedent in defining clear and convincing as “highly probable.” The judge also instructed that the clear and convincing standard is lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof, thereby establishing the relative positions of the standards. ¶ 76 Roque cites State v. Renforth, 155 Ariz. 385 , 746 P.2d 1315 (App.1987), for the proposition that erroneous jury instructions constitute fundamental error. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.