State v. Bayardi
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- Hayes v. Continental InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1994
- Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. RodriguezArizona Supreme Court · 1998
- McAlister v. CitibankCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- State v. FellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett HansenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- Dabrowski v. BartlettCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
- Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
- Dobson v. McClennenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
- Brailsford v. FosterCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2017
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.