10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2009 0 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. LaGrandgreen2 sentences1995“An intoxication instruction should be given only when the record supports such an instruction.” LaGrand, 152 Ariz. at 487 , 733 P.2d at 1070 . 1995“An intoxication instruction should be given only when the record supports such an instruction.” LaGrand, 152 Ariz. at 487 , 733 P.2d at 1070 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Laffoongreen2 sentences1992This court has repeatedly held "that the effect of alcohol intoxication is an area within the common knowledge and experience of the jury, and therefore, no expert testimony is needed to assist the trier of *408 fact." State v. Hicks, 133 Ariz. 64, 71 , 649 P.2d 267, 274 (1982); see also State v. Laffoon, 125 Ariz. 484, 486 , 610 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1980). 1992This court has repeatedly held "that the effect of alcohol intoxication is an area within the common knowledge and experience of the jury, and therefore, no expert testimony is needed to assist the trier of *408 fact." State v. Hicks, 133 Ariz. 64, 71 , 649 P.2d 267, 274 (1982); see also State v. Laffoon, 125 Ariz. 484, 486 , 610 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences1992This court has repeatedly held "that the effect of alcohol intoxication is an area within the common knowledge and experience of the jury, and therefore, no expert testimony is needed to assist the trier of *408 fact." State v. Hicks, 133 Ariz. 64, 71 , 649 P.2d 267, 274 (1982); see also State v. Laffoon, 125 Ariz. 484, 486 , 610 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1980). 1992This court has repeatedly held "that the effect of alcohol intoxication is an area within the common knowledge and experience of the jury, and therefore, no expert testimony is needed to assist the trier of *408 fact." State v. Hicks, 133 Ariz. 64, 71 , 649 P.2d 267, 274 (1982); see also State v. Laffoon, 125 Ariz. 484, 486 , 610 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Borbongreen2 sentences1990State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392, 398 , 706 P.2d 718, 724 (1985). 1990State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392, 398 , 706 P.2d 718, 724 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cruz-Matagreen2 sentences1987State v. Cruz-Mata, 138 Ariz. 370, 373-74 , 674 P.2d 1368, 1371-72 (1983). 1987State v. Cruz-Mata, 138 Ariz. 370, 373-74 , 674 P.2d 1368, 1371-72 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reffittgreen2 sentences1985Intoxication is a defense to those crimes committed with an "intentionally" mens rea, see A.R.S. § 13-503; State v. Reffitt, 145 Ariz. 452, 464 , 702 P.2d 681, 693 (1985), in this case the attempted armed robbery and the resisting arrest charges. 1985Intoxication is a defense to those crimes committed with an "intentionally" mens rea, see A.R.S. § 13-503; State v. Reffitt, 145 Ariz. 452, 464 , 702 P.2d 681, 693 (1985), in this case the attempted armed robbery and the resisting arrest charges. | 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. Schurz
green
2 sentences2009In Schurz , we explained that § 13-503 permitted a jury to consider voluntary intoxication only when the culpable mental state is intentional or with intent to. 176 Ariz. at 55 , 859 P.2d at 165 . ¶32 Schurz addressed whether an intoxication instruction' was appropriate when a defendant was charged with “intentionally” or “knowingly” committing first degree murder. 2009In Schurz , we explained that § 13-503 permitted a jury to consider voluntary intoxication only when the culpable mental state is intentional or with intent to. 176 Ariz. at 55 , 859 P.2d at 165 . ¶32 Schurz addressed whether an intoxication instruction' was appropriate when a defendant was charged with “intentionally” or “knowingly” committing first degree murder. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2004Grammatico, 208 Ariz. at 14 , ¶ 15 n. 5, 90 P.3d at 215 n. 5. 2004Grammatico, 208 Ariz. at 14 , ¶ 15 n. 5, 90 P.3d at 215 n. 5. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Whittle
green
2 sentences1989State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405, 408 , 752 P.2d 494 (1988). 1989State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405, 408 , 752 P.2d 494 (1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Campbell v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1983MISTAKEN BELIEF In Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542 , 479 P.2d 685 (1971), the Arizona Supreme Court held, inter alia, that a motorist arrested for driving while intoxicated does not have a right to counsel in deciding whether to take the intoxication test. 1983MISTAKEN BELIEF In Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542 , 479 P.2d 685 (1971), the Arizona Supreme Court held, inter alia, that a motorist arrested for driving while intoxicated does not have a right to counsel in deciding whether to take the intoxication test. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz.
green
1 sentence1983In McNutt v. Superior Court, 648 P.2d 122 , 125 n. 2 (1982), the supreme court held that the defendant did not have the right to delay the taking of the test by demanding to consult with counsel. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.