Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA, 6 P.3d 323.

32 citing documents.

State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
And although the State need only establish a reasonable inference that the charged crime was actually committed, “all elements of the offense must be supported by independent evidence or corroborated admissions.” ¶ 12 & n.6 (App. 2000) (citation omitted).
State v. Snow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Snow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
–24, ¶¶ 9–16 (App. 2000) (holding that the rule of corpus delicti does not apply at a preliminary hearing).
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
County of Maricopa, ¶ 12
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Maricopa, ¶ 13 , ( , and Adolfson v. United States, 159 F.2d 883, 888 (9th Cir.1947)).
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State v. Cornman 351 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cornman 351 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Thus, “[a] defendant may not be convicted of a crime based on an uncorroborated confession without independent proof of the corpus delicti, or the ‘body of the crime.’” ¶ 15, ( ¶ 13, ) (italics added).
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
County of Maricopa, ¶ 14, ).
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶6 As the trial court correctly noted, the corpus delicti rule prohibits conviction of a defendant “based upon an uncorroborated confession without independent proof of the corpus delicti, or the ‘body of the crime.’” Morgan, 61 P.3d at 464, see also Black’s Law Dictionary 344 (6th ed. 1990) (defining corpus delicti as “body of a crime”).
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“The state ‘must establish the corpus delicti by showing proof of a crime and that someone is 18 responsible for that crime.’”
State v. Nieves 87 P.3d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nieves 87 P.3d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
“As long as the State ultimately submits adequate proof of the corpus delicti before it rests, the defendant’s statements may be admitted.” ¶ 14
State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
("[T]he sufficiency of the evidence of the corpus delicti are matters within the discretion of the trial court.").
State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(“[T]he sufficiency of the evidence of the corpus delicti are matters within the discretion of the trial court.
State v. Flores 42 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Flores 42 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by