State v. Renforth
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FIDEL, Judge.
In this case we confront the elusive definition of “clear and convincing evidence.”
Defendant Curtis Oliver Renforth was tried before a jury and convicted of the crime of aggravated assault, a dangerous felony. Renforth did not deny assaultive conduct, but defended on the ground that he was, at the time of that conduct, insane. From his conviction and sentence to a mitigated five year prison term, Renforth appeals. The focus of his appeal is a jury instruction in which the trial judge defined Renforth’s burden to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
Renforth’s…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Linthicum v. Nationwide Life InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1986
- Matter of NevilleArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- State v. HenleyArizona Supreme Court · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- State v. RoqueArizona Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. KingArizona Supreme Court · 1988
- United States v. Alvin Omega OwensCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
- In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
- United States v. DixonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.