7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tyler
green
2 sentences2007The defendant requested an instruction that would have directed the jury that they could not find him guilty “[i]f [they found] that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the shotgun in question with criminal intent.” Id. 2007Tyler, 149 Ariz. at 316 , 718 P.2d at 218 . ¶ 20 Nonetheless, the Tyler court then suggested that, had the defendant requested an instruction taken from a Kansas case, State v. Runnels, 203 Kan. 513 , 456 P.2d 16 (1969), the trial court would have been correct to present it to the jury. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Runnels
green
2 sentences2007Tyler, 149 Ariz. at 316 , 718 P.2d at 218 . ¶ 20 Nonetheless, the Tyler court then suggested that, had the defendant requested an instruction taken from a Kansas case, State v. Runnels, 203 Kan. 513 , 456 P.2d 16 (1969), the trial court would have been correct to present it to the jury. 2007Tyler, 149 Ariz. at 316 , 718 P.2d at 218 . ¶ 20 Nonetheless, the Tyler court then suggested that, had the defendant requested an instruction taken from a Kansas case, State v. Runnels, 203 Kan. 513 , 456 P.2d 16 (1969), the trial court would have been correct to present it to the jury. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Jessen
green
2 sentences2009In Jessen , the defendant requested an instruction to the effect that he had no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. 130 Ariz. at 8 , 633 P.2d at 417 . 2009In Jessen , the defendant requested an instruction to the effect that he had no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. 130 Ariz. at 8 , 633 P.2d at 417 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Diaz
green
1 sentence2001See id. at 365-66, 813 P.2d at 730-31 (declining to apply a fundamental error analysis because the defendant requested an instruction disapproved by the Arizona Supreme Court five years earlier). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1989Such an instruction had been mandated by State v. Jackson, 94 Ariz. 117 , 382 P.2d 229 (1963). 1989Such an instruction had been mandated by State v. Jackson, 94 Ariz. 117 , 382 P.2d 229 (1963). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Cravin
green
2 sentences1971Defendant claims that it was error not to instruct the jury that the crime of theft “requires a specific felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.” It is true that “intent to permanently deprive the owner of his possession is an essential ingredient of grand theft”, Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395 , 181 P.2d 822 (1947); State v. Cravin, 96 Ariz. 346 , 395 P.2d 706 (1964), and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if reasonably supported by the evidence. 1971Defendant claims that it was error not to instruct the jury that the crime of theft “requires a specific felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.” It is true that “intent to permanently deprive the owner of his possession is an essential ingredient of grand theft”, Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395 , 181 P.2d 822 (1947); State v. Cravin, 96 Ariz. 346 , 395 P.2d 706 (1964), and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if reasonably supported by the evidence. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Whitson v. State
green
2 sentences1971Defendant claims that it was error not to instruct the jury that the crime of theft “requires a specific felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.” It is true that “intent to permanently deprive the owner of his possession is an essential ingredient of grand theft”, Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395 , 181 P.2d 822 (1947); State v. Cravin, 96 Ariz. 346 , 395 P.2d 706 (1964), and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if reasonably supported by the evidence. 1971Defendant claims that it was error not to instruct the jury that the crime of theft “requires a specific felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.” It is true that “intent to permanently deprive the owner of his possession is an essential ingredient of grand theft”, Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395 , 181 P.2d 822 (1947); State v. Cravin, 96 Ariz. 346 , 395 P.2d 706 (1964), and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if reasonably supported by the evidence. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. McLain
green
2 sentences1969The defendant requested that an instruction on absence of flight should have been given, arguing that “where flight is shown in the evidence, an instruction thereon is proper and not an undue comment on the evidence.” State v. McLain, 74 Ariz. 132 , 245 P.2d 278 (1952). 1969The defendant requested that an instruction on absence of flight should have been given, arguing that “where flight is shown in the evidence, an instruction thereon is proper and not an undue comment on the evidence.” State v. McLain, 74 Ariz. 132 , 245 P.2d 278 (1952). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.