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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Countygreen2 sentences2017Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 (App. 1994) (“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.”) (citing United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223, 1235 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also State v. Kelly, 210 Ariz. 460, 463, ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (“Because the . . . provision [at issue] functions as an exception, it is not an element of the offense that the state must prove.”); State v. Jung, 19 Ariz. App. 257, 262 (1973) (holding the prosecution is “not required to negative 2012A defendant “who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 , 887 P.2d 599, 612 (App.1994) (citing cases); see also State v. Jung, 19 Ariz.App. 257, 262 , 506 P.2d 648, 653 (1973) (“[T]he state is not required to [prove] negative statutory exceptions — such exception is a matter of defense where it is not an ingredient of the offense.”); accord Hammonds, 192 Ariz. at 532, ¶ 12, 968 P.2d at 605 ( | 4 | 4 |
United States v. Patrick G. Henrygreen2 sentences2017Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 (App. 1994) (“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.”) (citing United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223, 1235 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also State v. Kelly, 210 Ariz. 460, 463, ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (“Because the . . . provision [at issue] functions as an exception, it is not an element of the offense that the state must prove.”); State v. Jung, 19 Ariz. App. 257, 262 (1973) (holding the prosecution is “not required to negative 2005“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 , 887 P.2d 599, 612 (App.1994); see also United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir.1980) (same); State v. Rosthenhausler, 147 Ariz. 486 , 711 P.2d 625 (App.1985) (statutory exception for inoperable firearms not an element of crime involving deadly weapon; burden to show inoperability on defendant); State v. Quandt, 17 Ariz.App. 33, 34 , 495 | 4 | 4 |
State v. Quandtgreen2 sentences2017Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 (App. 1994) (“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.”) (citing United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223, 1235 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also State v. Kelly, 210 Ariz. 460, 463, ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (“Because the . . . provision [at issue] functions as an exception, it is not an element of the offense that the state must prove.”); State v. Jung, 19 Ariz. App. 257, 262 (1973) (holding the prosecution is “not required to negative 2005“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 , 887 P.2d 599, 612 (App.1994); see also United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir.1980) (same); State v. Rosthenhausler, 147 Ariz. 486 , 711 P.2d 625 (App.1985) (statutory exception for inoperable firearms not an element of crime involving deadly weapon; burden to show inoperability on defendant); State v. Quandt, 17 Ariz.App. 33, 34 , 495 | 3 | 3 |
State v. Junggreen2 sentences2017Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 (App. 1994) (“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.”) (citing United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223, 1235 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also State v. Kelly, 210 Ariz. 460, 463, ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (“Because the . . . provision [at issue] functions as an exception, it is not an element of the offense that the state must prove.”); State v. Jung, 19 Ariz. App. 257, 262 (1973) (holding the prosecution is “not required to negative 2012A defendant “who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 , 887 P.2d 599, 612 (App.1994) (citing cases); see also State v. Jung, 19 Ariz.App. 257, 262 , 506 P.2d 648, 653 (1973) (“[T]he state is not required to [prove] negative statutory exceptions — such exception is a matter of defense where it is not an ingredient of the offense.”); accord Hammonds, 192 Ariz. at 532, ¶ 12, 968 P.2d at 605 ( | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bayardigreen2 sentences2015"A defendant 'who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.' ” State v. Bayardi, 230 Ariz. 195, ¶22 , 281 P.3d 1063, 1068-69 (App.2012), quoting In re Maricopa Cnty. 2015"A defendant 'who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.' ” State v. Bayardi, 230 Ariz. 195, ¶22 , 281 P.3d 1063, 1068-69 (App.2012), quoting In re Maricopa Cnty. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kellygreen1 sentence2017Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 (App. 1994) (“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.”) (citing United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223, 1235 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also State v. Kelly, 210 Ariz. 460, 463, ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (“Because the . . . provision [at issue] functions as an exception, it is not an element of the offense that the state must prove.”); State v. Jung, 19 Ariz. App. 257, 262 (1973) (holding the prosecution is “not required to negative | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hammondsgreen2 sentences2012A defendant “who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 , 887 P.2d 599, 612 (App.1994) (citing cases); see also State v. Jung, 19 Ariz.App. 257, 262 , 506 P.2d 648, 653 (1973) (“[T]he state is not required to [prove] negative statutory exceptions — such exception is a matter of defense where it is not an ingredient of the offense.”); accord Hammonds, 192 Ariz. at 532, ¶ 12, 968 P.2d at 605 ( 2012A defendant “who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 , 887 P.2d 599, 612 (App.1994) (citing cases); see also State v. Jung, 19 Ariz.App. 257, 262 , 506 P.2d 648, 653 (1973) (“[T]he state is not required to [prove] negative statutory exceptions — such exception is a matter of defense where it is not an ingredient of the offense.”); accord Hammonds, 192 Ariz. at 532, ¶ 12, 968 P.2d at 605 ( | 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. Rosthenhausler
green
2 sentences2005“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 , 887 P.2d 599, 612 (App.1994); see also United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir.1980) (same); State v. Rosthenhausler, 147 Ariz. 486 , 711 P.2d 625 (App.1985) (statutory exception for inoperable firearms not an element of crime involving deadly weapon; burden to show inoperability on defendant); State v. Quandt, 17 Ariz.App. 33, 34 , 495 2005“A defendant who relies upon an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 , 887 P.2d 599, 612 (App.1994); see also United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir.1980) (same); State v. Rosthenhausler, 147 Ariz. 486 , 711 P.2d 625 (App.1985) (statutory exception for inoperable firearms not an element of crime involving deadly weapon; burden to show inoperability on defendant); State v. Quandt, 17 Ariz.App. 33, 34 , 495 | 2 | 2005–2005 |
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.