Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

State ex rel. Woods v. Cohen

Supreme Court of Arizona
844 P.2d 1147 (Ariz. 1992)


Facts

Edwin Cohen (defendant) was indicted for conspiracy to defraud the Arizona health-care system. Count 1 of the indictment charged Cohen with conspiracy, while counts 18 through 29 charged Cohen with various substantive offenses committed by co-conspirators. Cohen moved to dismiss counts 18 through 29, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support those charges. The trial court granted Cohen’s motion and remanded those counts to the grand jury. In a special action before the court of appeals, the state argued that the trial court had incorrectly rejected the Pinkerton doctrine of vicarious liability, which would have supported Cohen’s liability for substantive crimes committed by co-conspirators, even though Cohen had not participated in the crimes. The state contended that co-conspirator liability was included within accomplice liability. State law defined an accomplice as anyone who, while intending to encourage or facilitate an offense, aided or tried to aid another person in planning or committing the crime. The grand jury had been instructed on Pinkerton liability, and the state conceded that there had not been any evidence showing that Cohen had participated directly in any of the offenses in counts 18 through 29. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings on the indictment. Cohen petitioned the Supreme Court of Arizona for review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Martone, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.