Citation network
Schad Vs. Arizona
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 21, 1991
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 624 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Schad v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. 624 (1991) Schad v. ArizonaSearch
-
the jury to agree on a single theory of first-degree murder. The court also rejected Schad's argument that Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
affirmed. JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III, concluding that Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
what facts are necessary to constitute a particular offense within the meaning of Winship. See, e.g., Patterson v. NewSearch
-
prove a single offense of first-degree murder finds substantial historical and contemporary echoes. See, e.g., People v. SullivanSearch
-
State v. BuckmanSearch
-
is the moral equivalent of premeditation, it is clear that such equivalence could reasonably be found. See Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
was guilty of premeditated murder or felony murder is unconstitutional, and whether the principle recognized in Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
P.2d at 1168 (quoting State v. EncinasSearch
-
P.2d 624, 627 (1982)) (citations omitted). The court also rejected petitioner's argument that Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
a unanimous jury in state capital cases, as distinct from those where lesser penalties are imposed. See Johnson v. LouisianaSearch
-
need not specify which overt act, among several named, was the means by which a crime was committed. In Andersen v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 504 , we explained that it was immaterial whether death was caused by one means or the other. Cf. Borum v. UnitedSearch
-
St. Clair v. UnitedSearch
-
McKoy v. NorthSearch
-
the other the intent required for murder combined with the commission of an independently culpable felony. See State v. SernaSearch
-
so vague that people of common intelligence would be relegated to differing guesses about its meaning, see Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, 306 U. S. 451 , 306 U. S. 453 (1939) (citing Connally v. GeneralSearch
-
U. S. 513 , 357 U. S. 523 (1958) (quoting Snyder v. MassachusettsSearch
-
the requisite specificity of the charge may not be compromised by the joining of separate offenses, see United States v. UCOSearch
-
circuits, deriving primarily from the decision of the Fifth Circuit Page 501 U. S. 634 in United States v. GipsonSearch
-
as the appropriate test. E.g., United States v. PetersonSearch
-
United States v. DuncanSearch
-
F.2d 1104, 1113 (CA6 1988), cert. denied Page 501 U. S. 635 sub nom. Downing v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. BaldwinSearch
-
is too indeterminate to provide concrete guidance to courts faced with verdict specificity questions. See, e.g., Rice v. StateSearch
-
Manson v. StateSearch
-
See post at 501 U. S. 656 -658 (citing In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), and Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
rather, it is a substantial question of statutory construction. See, e.g., United States v. UCOSearch
-
that determination and conclude that the alternatives are, in fact, independent elements under state law. See Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
Murdock v. CitySearch
-
is a distillate of the concept of due process with its demands for fundamental fairness, see, e.g., Dowling v. UnitedSearch
-
by a court. Respect for this legislative competence counsels restraint against judicial second-guessing, cf. Rostker v. GoldbergSearch
-
preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government, Irvine v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Patterson v. NewSearch
-
Martin v. OhioSearch
-
by allowing the prosecution to prove an aggravating fact by some standard less than that of reasonable doubt, McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
A series of state court decisions, beginning with the leading case of People v. SullivanSearch
-
Id. at 127, 65 N.E. at 989-990. See People v. MilanSearch
-
People v. TravisSearch
-
State v. FuhrmannSearch
-
State v. WilsonSearch
-
Commonwealth v. DevlinSearch
-
People v. EmbreeSearch
-
James v. StateSearch
-
State v. TillmanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Schad v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial