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. Van Meter, 440 P.2d 58.

41 citing documents.

  • State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    Accordingly, this court set aside a four-month jail sentence imposed as a , because we could “find no authority for giving both probation and a jail sentence for the crime [of illegal possession of marijuana].” , (no statutory authority to impose eight- to ten-year prison sentence as conditio
  • State v. Mathieu 795 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Mathieu 795 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Benally 669 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Benally 669 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    As authority for his position, appellant cites, inter alia
  • State v. Brodie 618 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Brodie 618 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Murphy 570 P.2d 1070 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Murphy 570 P.2d 1070 Ariz. 1977
    We hold that the jury had suffi *62 cient evidence before it to conclude that defendant was guilty of knowingly possessing the narcotics in his apartment.”
  • State v. Weigel 554 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Miramon 555 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Miramon 555 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Pitts 548 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Pitts 548 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    P.2d 58 (1968), the court was faced with a situation analogous to the instant case.
  • State v. Fuentes 549 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Fuentes 549 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Pakula 547 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Pakula 547 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Evans 512 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Evans 512 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1973
    a similar conditional probation was ordered.
  • State v. Jung 506 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. Jung 506 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    in determining whether the magistrate had probable cause in issuing the search warrant, other circumstances made known to the magistrate under oath, in addition to the assertions contained in the supporting affidavit, may be considered.” , Sherrick v. Eyman, 389 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1968), cert.
  • State v. Laurino 492 P.2d 1189 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Laurino 492 P.2d 1189 Ariz. 1972
    196 , , (where mere presence is insufficient for conviction of possession).
  • State v. Perez 488 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Perez 488 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Dudgeon 477 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Dudgeon 477 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Snyder 468 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Snyder 468 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    State v. Greenleaf, 11 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Harris 451 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Harris 451 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    § 36-1002.-05 requires: “Every person who knowingly * * possesses any marijuana * * * shall be punished * * Numerous cases have attempted to define “knowing.” , the Court of Appeals upheld a conviction of illegal possession of marijuana.
  • State v. Allen 450 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Allen 450 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969