DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Veres, 436 P.2d 629.

30 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
    See, e.g., United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1326 (11th Cir. 2011) (records of credit card transactions properly admitted under federal rule 803(6) despite custodial witness “not hav[ing] personal knowledge of each of the records”); (to same effect), see also Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 803.08[8][a], at 803-84 to 803-86 (“The witness need not have .
  • State v. Millanes 885 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Millanes 885 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    (appellate courts will not reverse trial court’s ruling under excited utterance exception to hearsay rule absent clear abuse of discretion); , cert.
  • State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    While it has been held that double jeopardy may not be raised for the first time on appeal, , we do not confine ourselves to that proposition.
  • State v. Hancock 552 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Hancock 552 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Corrales 548 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Corrales 548 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    after appellant’s jury was selected, defense counsel moved to continue because appellant was absent.
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Johnson 503 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Johnson 503 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    On 27 February 1968 this Court construed Rule 348 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., , , to permit an appeal from a judgment of guilt within 60 days after the revocation of probation even though the appeal was taken more than 60 days after the judgment of guilt.
  • State v. Jackson 494 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Jackson 494 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    our Supreme Court overruled this Court’s , and held that one who is adjudged guilty and granted probation must appeal from the judgment of guilt within the prescribed period of time following the entry thereof and that he may not appeal from the judgment of guilt after his time has elapsed and upon a later revocation of probation togethe
  • State v. Osborn 486 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Osborn 486 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1971
    [Review Denied], has indicated that appeal may be taken after revocation of probation even though no appeal had been taken from the judgment of guilt within sixty days from the date of the entry of the judgment of guilt.
  • State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
    where a defendant had been found guilty of two counts and probation revoked, the court in passing upon a similar sentence found that it was adequate, but recommended that where there was more than one count that the sentence with respect to each count be separately stated.
  • State v. Keever 458 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Keever 458 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Cadena 452 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Cadena 452 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Merrick v. United States Rubber Co. 440 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Merrick v. United States Rubber Co. 440 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    * * *” *436 , (review denied).