context: P 9 Here, in contrast, "the indictment ... made no reference, direct or implied," to facts that necessarily imply Robles could not have committed the charged offense without also having committed the lesser offense.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 610 P.2d 1045, 1048
citation_a.parenthetical: "Often facts may support another lesser conviction but if not charged in the indictment, the lesser offense may not be found."
citation_a.sentence: See Brown, 195 Ariz. 206, ¶ 10, 986 P.2d at 242 (“[I]t is the charging document and not the evidence that determines the issue.”); State v. Teran, 130 Ariz. 277, 279, 635 P.2d 870, 872 (App.1981) (“The test which determines the appropriateness of a lesser included instruction and verdict form by an analysis of the facts of a given case, i.e., the evidentiary test ... is not followed in Arizona.”); see also State v. Laffoon, 125 Ariz. 484, 487, 610 P.2d 1045, 1048 (1980) (“Often facts may support another lesser conviction but if not charged in the indictment, the lesser offense may not be found.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 130 Ariz. 277, 279
citation_b.parenthetical: "The test which determines the appropriateness of a lesser included instruction and verdict form by an analysis of the facts of a given case, i.e., the evidentiary test ... is not followed in Arizona."
citation_b.sentence: See Brown, 195 Ariz. 206, ¶ 10, 986 P.2d at 242 (“[I]t is the charging document and not the evidence that determines the issue.”); State v. Teran, 130 Ariz. 277, 279, 635 P.2d 870, 872 (App.1981) (“The test which determines the appropriateness of a lesser included instruction and verdict form by an analysis of the facts of a given case, i.e., the evidentiary test ... is not followed in Arizona.”); see also State v. Laffoon, 125 Ariz. 484, 487, 610 P.2d 1045, 1048 (1980) (“Often facts may support another lesser conviction but if not charged in the indictment, the lesser offense may not be found.”).