Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Curtis, 562 P.2d 407.

26 citing documents.

State v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“[I]t is not necessary to show that a defendant exercised exclusive possession or control over the substance itself or the place in which the illegal substance was found; control or right to control is sufficient.”
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
And “it is not necessary to show that a defendant exercised exclusive possession or control over the substance itself or the place in which the illegal substance was found; control or right to control is sufficient.”
State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
But “it is not necessary to show that a defendant exercised exclusive possession or control over the substance itself or the place in which the illegal substance was found; control or right to control is sufficient.”
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
marijuana.” The crime of possession requires “either actual physical possession or constructive possession.”
State v. Mullins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mullins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ed a drug ledger, Mullins's cell phone containing text requests to purchase drugs from him, and small clear plastic bags containing a powder residue.4 ¶ 9 (App. 2013) ("Possession may be actual or constructive."); ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence alone); ("[I]t is not necessary to show that a defendant exercised exclusive possession or control over the substance itself or the place in which the illegal substance was found; control or right to con
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Furthermore, it is not necessary to show that a defendant exercised exclusive possession or control over the drugs or the place in which the drugs were found; “control or right to control is sufficient.” (noting that possession of narcotic drugs may be sole or joint, and two or more persons may have joint possession thereof).
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Valenzuela 589 P.2d 1306 Ariz. 1979
State v. Valenzuela 589 P.2d 1306 Ariz. 1979
State v. Olivas 579 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Olivas 579 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
and cases cited therein.
State v. Hansen 573 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Hansen 573 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977