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. Stewart, 412 P.2d 860.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶14 The State concedes insufficient evidence supported the possession of burglary tools conviction as instructed and that “[f]or purposes of determining whether sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict, it appears the evidence must be analyzed in terms of the charge actually submitted to the jury.” 3 Although we are not bound by the State’s confession of error, we agree that insufficient evidence supports the conviction on the grounds submitted to the jury.
  • State v. Sanchez 846 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Sanchez 846 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Berger 790 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Berger 790 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    and State v. Betts, 5 Ariz.App.
  • Anonymous v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 484 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Anonymous v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 484 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Christopher 457 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Christopher 457 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    *173 , , and State v. Betts, 5 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Robinson 452 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Robinson 452 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Butler 450 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Butler 450 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Rojas 443 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Rojas 443 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Followed State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    In this jurisdiction, , State v. Rogers, 2 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    We have stated before: “We have found nothing which would indicate that our procedure of information after examination and commitment by a magistrate is not a proper and constitutional substitution for presentment or indictment by a grand jury.”
  • State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Franklin v. Eyman 415 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Franklin v. Eyman 415 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    He cites State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz. *504 App. 178, which case cites State v. Kuhnley, supra, at , -847, for the proposition that in the prosecution for the offense of receiving stolen property: “ 'the property must be described with certainty and accuracy and with sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine that such