DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kuhnley, 242 P.2d 843.

70 citing documents.

  • State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Martinez, 127 Ariz. at 446-47, 622 P.2d at 6; (holding that State was permitted to introduce extrinsic evidence showing prior conduct by defendant to contradict material evidence testified to by defendant).
  • State v. Cota 956 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Cota 956 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1998
    ntoxicating liquor); , (person giving a bribe cannot be accomplice to crime 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); , (prostitu
  • State v. Martin 679 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Martin 679 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    in support of his proposition that an information or indictment which charges two or more distinct and separate offenses in one count is void *372 for duplicity.
  • State v. Shepherd 555 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Shepherd 555 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Linne 501 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Linne 501 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Kountz 501 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Kountz 501 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
    We have stated: “We do not believe that this was an abuse of discretion for on rebuttal the state may offer any competent evidence which is a direct reply to or a contradiction of any material evidence introduced by the accused even though it may tend to prove another offense or strengthen the prosecution’s case.”
  • State v. Fulper 493 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Fulper 493 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Garza 486 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Garza 486 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    Nor, , dealing with an information charging the crime of receiving stolen property, requires a contrary result.
  • State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
    1959): , 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3rd ed.) § 218; Udall, Arizona Law of Evi'dence § 115; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (12th ed.) § 284.
  • State v. Mahoney 475 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mahoney 475 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1970
    503 , 329 S.W.2d 878 (Tex.Cr.App.1959); , 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3rd ed.) § 218; Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 115; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (12th ed.) § 284.
  • State v. Suarez 470 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Suarez 470 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Christopher 457 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Christopher 457 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    *173 , State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Little 455 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Little 455 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1969
    mination of criminal cases * * , : “The older cases prior to 1940 demanded technical formalities in an information with a view to advising a defendant of particulars which he might need so as to defend against the charge or to assert a plea of double jeopardy in the event of a subsequent prosecution * * , , in his brief as authority for his contention that the information here is fatally defective.
  • State v. Robinson 452 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Robinson 452 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    545 (1926); , and see State v. Roy, 40 N.M.
  • State v. Superior Court of Pima County 436 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Superior Court of Pima County 436 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Distinguished State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    on the ground that the “bad acts” in that case constituted independent crimes and the evidentiary value in the particular case was less poignant.
  • State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    an information charging the receipt of stolen property consisting of two sewing machines, a saw, a radio, and two typewriters was held to be fatally defective since it failed to set out the serial numbers and trade names of the property.
  • Franklin v. Eyman 415 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Franklin v. Eyman 415 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    : “Unquestionably the gist of the offense is receiving the stolen goods with a guilty knowledge, coupled with the intent of depriving the owner of possession or obtaining it for one’s own gain.” That this petitioner received the stolen goods, with guilty knowledge of the fact that the equ
  • State v. Dowthard 413 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Dowthard 413 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    And our Supreme Court has recently stated: “We do not believe that this was an abuse of discretion for on rebuttal the state may offer any competent evidence which is a direct reply to or a contradiction of any material evidence introduced by the accused even though it may tend to prove another offense or strengthen the prosecution’s case.” at 19 , at 849 (1952).
  • State v. Stewart 412 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Stewart 412 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    perty meant and enable him to make the needful preparations to meet such charge at the trial, to enable the jury to determine whether the stolen property proved to have been received was the same as that upon which the indictment was founded, and to enable the defendant to plead the verdict in bar of a subsequent prosecution for unlawfully receiving the same articles or goods.”' at 15 , at 846 (1952).