Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Eisenstein, 235 P.2d 1011.

69 citing documents.

State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
The court also concluded that such reflection could be “as instantaneous as the consecutive thoughts of the human mind.”
State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
A frequently-cited source of the problematic “instantaneous as successive thoughts” -33 , -20 (1951)
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
overruled on other grounds, , .50
State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
280 P. 672 (1929), , or State v. Dante, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
They may be as instantaneous as the consecutive thoughts of the human mind.”
State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
State v. Dante 541 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Dante 541 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
to the effect that when the offense is clearly established, the general rule is that a “motive” instruction is unnecessary because motive is not an essential element of the crime.
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
They may be as instantaneous as the consecutive thoughts of the human mind.”
State v. Richmond 540 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1975
State v. Richmond 540 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1975
State v. Duke 518 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1974
State v. Duke 518 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1974
They may be as instantaneous as the consecutive thoughts of the human mind.’ ”
State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
See Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, Section 11 at page 20
State v. Godsoe 489 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
State v. Godsoe 489 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
Chavez v. Pima County 488 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1971
State v. Hull 486 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Hull 486 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Malumphy 461 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1969
State v. Malumphy 461 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1969
State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In our own state, though generally the singling out of evidence so as to give it undue prominence is prohibited, , the courts have nevertheless endorsed the giving of a flight instruction when there is evidence of flight immediately following the commission of a crime.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
There was no objection to this instruction on the basis of its singling out evidence for comment, , the objection presented to the' trial court being a reiteration of the state’s concept of the limited nature of the access rights of an abutting property owner, a concept we have rejected in this opinion.
State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
State v. Arriola 409 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1965
State v. Arriola 409 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1965
State v. Gallegos, 99 Ariz. ___ , , ; , ; , ; , ; , .
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
State v. Gallegos 407 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1965
State v. Gallegos 407 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
at page 329, , at page 1017, we said: “It is also the usually accepted rule that where counsel has himself injected a certain issue into the case, he *89 may not object because the other party also introduces evidence of a similar nature.” , .
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1965
we said: “It is the general rule that unless objection is made to the admission of evidence, it cannot be urged on appeal that it was error for the court to admit it.” This assignment of error is without merit.
State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
We have held that as a predicate for the opinion of a non-expert witness as to the sanity or insanity of a person whose mental condition is in issue the witnesses must state facts, circumstances, acts, conversations and conduct of the person whose sanity is in question upon which he bases his opinion., , State v. Eisenstein, 72 Ariz 320
State v. Schantz 403 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1965
State v. Schantz 403 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1965
Ariz. 320, ; , ; , ; , ; , 294 P. 268 ; , 201 P. 91 .
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964