Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fristoe, 658 P.2d 825.

38 citing documents.

State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to rebut the findings of the trial court that his absence at trial was voluntary.); (No abuse of discretion when the court refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on voluntariness when the defendant was out of contact with his attorney.).
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
6 STATE v. CONTRERAS Opinion of the Court whereabouts); (no evidence offered by defense counsel to suggest defendant’s absence anything but voluntary).
In Re Delinquency of T.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Delinquency of T.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶¶ 13–15 (App. 2000) (finding that even an offer to engage in sexual conduct was sufficient to sustain a conviction of attempted sexual conduct with a minor); (finding a defendant’s request for minors to perform sexual acts with him was substantial evidence of attempted sexual conduct with a minor).
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
P. 9.1; (“a defendant may waive his right to be present at any proceeding by voluntarily absenting himself from it”).
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
P. 9.1; (“a defendant may waive his right to be present at any proceeding by voluntarily absenting himself from it”).
State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
at 407-08, 544 P.2d at 231-32
State v. Johnson 111 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Johnson 111 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
§ 13-1001(A)(2); -30 , -30 (App.1982) (“any step” equivalent to “substantial step” for purposes of attempt statute).
State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. DeValencia 949 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. DeValencia 949 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“Where the evidence raises a question of fact for the jury and where such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to sustain conviction, the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is not error.”
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Daugherty 845 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Daugherty 845 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Moreover, , we held that “words constituted acts sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempt.” , (offering to sell narcotics; legislature properly “proscribe[d] a course of conduct that may be carried out by speech”).
State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. McMillen 742 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. McMillen 742 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Griffin 744 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Griffin 744 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
overruled on other grounds
State v. Suniga 701 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Suniga 701 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold a hearing and make a forrqal finding that the defendant had voluntarily absented himself from trial prior to trying him in absentia.
State v. Webb 681 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Webb 681 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984