Arizona Supreme Court· 9/19/1995

State v. Lara

Citations

902 P.2d 1337
183 Ariz. 233
199 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 36
1995 Ariz. LEXIS 88

How courts have described this case

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

distinguishing the permissible inference of intent from the unconstitutional presumption of intent addressed in Sandstrom v. Montana
affirming trial court's refusal of instruction for disorderly conduct on theory that victim was merely disturbed, given undisputed evidence that he was in apprehension of imminent bodily injury
affirming trial court’s refusal of instruction for disorderly conduct on theory that victim was merely disturbed, given undisputed evidence that he was in apprehension of imminent bodily injury
involuntary acts include heartbeat, breathing, and blinking, and “bodily movement while unconscious, asleep, under hypnosis, or during an epileptic fit”
Lara requested a voluntary act instruction because of his brain impairment and personality disorder that impaired his judgment when he assaulted and attempted to murder Kucsmas
disorderly conduct not implicated when there is no question as to a distinguishing element of aggravated assault

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Martone, Feldman, Moeller, Corcoran, Zlaket

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.