Legal Opinion
State v. Carruth
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided May 21, 1982No. 2 CA-CIV 4403-2 CA-CIV 4406 and 2 CA-CIV 4420PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BIRDSALL, Judge.
The respondent courts each dismissed criminal charges against the real parties in interest on the grounds that A.R.S. § 13-3403(A)(1) is unconstitutional. The petitioner, State of Arizona, has filed these special actions challenging those rulings. We agree that the prosecutions were dismissed without legal basis, and assume jurisdiction since multiple cases are involved and the state’s remedy by appeal would be inadequate.
The statute prohibits what is commonly called “glue sniffing.” It provides, in material part:
“A. A person shall not knowingly:
1. breath, inhale, or…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Eisenstadt v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- Matter of Cause No. Mh-90-00566Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
- Cacavas v. BowenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
- State v. PoehneltCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.