Legal Opinion

State v. Bayardi

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided August 9, 2012No. 1 CA-CV 11-0615PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

THUMMA, Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant Joseph W. Fannin is charged in municipal court with driving with an impermissible drug in his body in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 28-1381(A)(3) (West 2012).1 Fannin challenges the superior court’s holding that A.R.S. § 28-1381(D) creates an affirmative defense requiring him to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was using the drug as prescribed by a medical practitioner. For the following reasons, we accept jurisdiction and deny relief.

*197FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 The State has charged Fannin with two counts of…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hayes v. Continental InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. RodriguezArizona Supreme Court · 1998
  4. McAlister v. CitibankCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
  5. State v. FellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett HansenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
  2. Dabrowski v. BartlettCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
  3. Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  4. Dobson v. McClennenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  5. Brailsford v. FosterCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2017

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API