Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hamilton, 868 P.2d 986.

64 citing documents.

State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
see also United States v. Austin, 448 F.2d 399, 401 (9th Cir.1971) (“Generally, exact dates are not required so long as they are within the statute of limitation and no prejudice is shown.
State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(“Dr. Boychuk’s testimony regarding the general behavioral characteristics of child molesters and their victims is virtually the identical type of testimony that is consistently upheld by both this court and the supreme court as being helpful to jurors and, thus, a proper subject for expert t
State v. Stine 906 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Stine 906 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
sections 1-105, 1-246, and 1-247 and determined that “[i]n the context of criminal law, an offender must be punished under the law in force when the offense was committed and is not exempted from punishment by a subsequent amendment to the applicable statutory provision.” , , (enactment of criminal code effective October 1,1978, made expressly prospective by Section 179 of Chapter 142 by 1977 Session Laws); , (general st
State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
511 , 121 L.Ed.2d 445 (1992)
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995