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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2019 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. Sawyergreen2 sentences2006Compare State v. Sawyer, 227 Conn. 566 , 630 A.2d 1064, 1074-75 (1993) (“The reasonable efforts instruction also raises grave questions of public policy because of its implications for the doctrine of the implied acquittal in the context of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.”), with U.S. v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340 , 346 n. 7 (2nd Cir.1978) (stating that retrial on the greater offense following conviction on a lesser-included offense “apparently is barred by the double jeopardy clause regardless of the form of the instruction”). ¶ 15 We nonetheless assume for purposes of analyz 2006Compare State v. Sawyer, 227 Conn. 566 , 630 A.2d 1064, 1074-75 (1993) (“The reasonable efforts instruction also raises grave questions of public policy because of its implications for the doctrine of the implied acquittal in the context of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.”), with U.S. v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340 , 346 n. 7 (2nd Cir.1978) (stating that retrial on the greater offense following conviction on a lesser-included offense “apparently is barred by the double jeopardy clause regardless of the form of the instruction”). ¶ 15 We nonetheless assume for purposes of analyz | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Andrew Tsanasgreen1 sentence2006Compare State v. Sawyer, 227 Conn. 566 , 630 A.2d 1064, 1074-75 (1993) (“The reasonable efforts instruction also raises grave questions of public policy because of its implications for the doctrine of the implied acquittal in the context of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.”), with U.S. v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340 , 346 n. 7 (2nd Cir.1978) (stating that retrial on the greater offense following conviction on a lesser-included offense “apparently is barred by the double jeopardy clause regardless of the form of the instruction”). ¶ 15 We nonetheless assume for purposes of analyz | 1 | 1 |
Mary Ellen C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen2 sentences2004Accordingly, ADES “was obliged to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it had made a reasonable effort to provide [Appellant] with rehabilitative services or that such an effort would be futile.” Mary Ellen C., 193 Ariz. at 193, ¶ 42 , 971 P.2d at 1054 . ¶ 16 In this case, the juvenile court did not engage in a reasonable efforts analysis with regard to A.R.S. § 8 — 533(B)(10). 2004Accordingly, ADES “was obliged to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it had made a reasonable effort to provide [Appellant] with rehabilitative services or that such an effort would be futile.” Mary Ellen C., 193 Ariz. at 193, ¶ 42 , 971 P.2d at 1054 . ¶ 16 In this case, the juvenile court did not engage in a reasonable efforts analysis with regard to A.R.S. § 8 — 533(B)(10). | 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. LeBlanc
green
2 sentences2019The Court faithfully applies the reasonable-efforts framework set out by State v. LeBlanc , 186 Ariz. 437 , 924 P.2d 441 (1996), and correctly notes that "[t]he State here did not ask us to reconsider LeBlanc ." Supra ¶ 21. 2019The Court faithfully applies the reasonable-efforts framework set out by State v. LeBlanc , 186 Ariz. 437 , 924 P.2d 441 (1996), and correctly notes that "[t]he State here did not ask us to reconsider LeBlanc ." Supra ¶ 21. | 3 | 2008–2019 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2006A contrary holding would raise significant questions regarding whether a defendant convicted of a lesser-included offense in Arizona under the LeBlanc instruction is constitutionally protected from retrial on the greater offense, an eventuality that we doubt the LeBlanc court intended when it abandoned use of the “acquittal-first” instruction in favor of the “reasonable efforts” approach. ¶ 16 We next consider Lemke’s second premise — that armed robbery is the “same offense” as felony murder predicated on armed robbery—by using the test enunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 2006A contrary holding would raise significant questions regarding whether a defendant convicted of a lesser-included offense in Arizona under the LeBlanc instruction is constitutionally protected from retrial on the greater offense, an eventuality that we doubt the LeBlanc court intended when it abandoned use of the “acquittal-first” instruction in favor of the “reasonable efforts” approach. ¶ 16 We next consider Lemke’s second premise — that armed robbery is the “same offense” as felony murder predicated on armed robbery—by using the test enunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.