DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Miller, 224 P.2d 205.

46 citing documents.

  • State v. Cota 956 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Cota 956 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1998
    ime of receiving a bribe from oneself); , modified on other grounds, , (gambler could not be accomplice to one who operates the gambling house); -20 , (thief cannot be accomplice to offense of knowingly receiving stolen goods); , (minor could not be an accomplice to one contributing to his own delinquency); , (prostitute could not have been tried for receiving the earnings of a prostitute from herself); , 229 P. 936, 936 (192
  • State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
    We find this Court’s , determinative of appellant’s position on appeal: “ * * * When a jury panel has been regularly called, summoned, qualified and sworn, in accordance with [the applicable laws] * * * then such a panel is a legal jury panel.
  • State v. Holmes 520 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Holmes 520 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
    Our case law interpreting this statute provides, among other things, that evidence which in only a ‘slight’ degree tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
    Nor need the ‘corroboration * * * be by direct evidence [for] the entire conduct of the defendant may be looked to for corroborating circumstances and if from those circumstances, his connection with the crime may be fairly inferred, the corroboration is sufficient.’ , ” 91 Ariz. at pp. 78-79, 369 P.2d at p. 921 .
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
    Our case law interpreting this statute provides, among other things, that evidence which in only a ‘slight’ degree tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the
  • State v. Oliver 452 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Oliver 452 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    “ ‘* * * Our case law interpreting this statute provides, among other things, that evidence which in only a “slight” degree tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the
  • State v. Fredrico 449 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Fredrico 449 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1969
    ’ , ” 91 Ariz. at pp. 78-79, 369 P.2d at p. 921 (Emphasis in original.)
  • State v. Wilson 439 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Wilson 439 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    Our case law interpreting this statute provides, among other things, that evidence which in only a ‘slight’ degree tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the
  • State v. Smallwood 438 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Smallwood 438 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    Our case law interpreting this statute provides, among other things, that evidence which in only a ‘slight’ degree tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    expressly approved the calling of jurors by telephone in the manner we assume was done in the present case.
  • State v. Springer 428 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Springer 428 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1967
    Our case law interpreting this statute provides, among other things, that evidence, which in only a “slight” degree tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the
  • State v. Valenzuela 418 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Valenzuela 418 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Sims 409 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sims 409 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Turner 383 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Turner 383 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
    Nor need the “corroboration * * * be by direct evidence [for] the entire conduct of the defendant may be looked to for corroborating circumstances and if from those circumstances, his connection with the crime may be fairly inferred, the corroboration is sufficient.”
  • State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Bagby 316 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1957
  • State v. Bagby 316 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1957
    232 P. 887 ; , at page 59, ; , .
  • State v. McDaniel 298 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1956
  • State v. McDaniel 298 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1956
    There are numerous decisions of this court interpreting this statute, some of the more recent being: , ; , .
  • State v. Thomas 290 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1955
  • State v. Thomas 290 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1955
  • State v. Martin 245 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1952
  • State v. Martin 245 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1952
    Hi ‡ íjs This court has consistently adhered to this test in determining whether the witnesses in the following cases were accomplices: , 229 P. 936 (thief and receiver of stolen property); , (a prostitute and one charged with receiving her earnings); , (a minor and one charged with contributing to his delinquency) ; , ; on rehearing , (the gambler and the operator of a gambling establishment) ; State v. Kuhnley, supra (another case of the thief and receiver of stolen property).