DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Stanley, 597 P.2d 998.

43 citing documents.

  • State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶21 An overt act is any act which “naturally advances the intent of the conspiracy.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Davitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Davitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    § 13-3012(9), and are not violative of the constitution of our state nor its federal counterpart, (citing United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966))
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 750 (1979) (constitution does not prohibit use of recordings of statements made by a party to the conversation); United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 753 (1971) (plurality opinion); (defendant may not challenge a search if he does not have an expectation of privacy in the location searched); see also Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478 (1966) (“Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment .
  • State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Allgood, 171 Ariz. at 524 (holding that a confrontation call arranged by police between minor victim and stepfather designed to elicit admissions corroborating accusations of sexual assault comported with state statute and state constitution); (“Under the Fourth Amendment, there is no invasion of privacy in monitoring, recording and introducing into evidence a telephone conversation where one party has given prior consent to the interception.”).
  • State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
  • Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
    2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
  • State v. Allgood 831 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Allgood 831 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Stevenson 830 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Stevenson 830 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    this court stated: A conspiracy to commit armed robbery does not exist unless there is an agreement between two or more persons to commit armed robbery, and an overt action is taken in furtherance of the agreement____ The overt act which is required for a conspiracy to exist can be an
  • State v. Smith 818 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Smith 818 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa 788 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa 788 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    Two subsequent cases, State v. Stanley, 123 * P.2d 998 (App.1979) , cite Dixon with approval, although in both of them it appears that the sentencing courts probably had more information before them relating to prior bad acts than the mere report of an arrest.
  • State v. Alford 754 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Alford 754 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Chee 680 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Chee 680 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. MacK 654 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. McGann 645 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. McGann 645 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1982
    408 , 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966); Schad, supra
  • State v. Wallis 646 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Scrivner 643 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Wallis 646 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Scrivner 643 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982