State v. Coconino Cty. Superior Ct., Div. II

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• agreeing with the result of the previously cited cases which were deemed “persuasive,” but resting the decision on nonconstitutional state law grounds
• avoiding ex post facto analysis and deciding question about retroactivity of statute under § 1-244 as independent state law ground
• exploring insanity defense not well suited to primary function of grand jury and is best left for petit jury
• exploring insanity defense not well suited to primary function of grand jury and is best left for petit jury
• statutory changes to Arizona’s insanity defense, A.R.S. § 13-502, did not apply to defendant when no clear expression of “legislative intent to make the new provisions retroactive”
• “Unless a statute is expressly declared to be retroactive, it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).