Cited by

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

70 citing documents.

State v. Musgrove 412 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Musgrove 412 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
governs the case at bar.
State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Rogers 407 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Rogers 407 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Villavicencio 388 P.2d 245 Ariz. 1964
State v. Villavicencio 388 P.2d 245 Ariz. 1964
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. Paramo 376 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1962
State v. Paramo 376 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1962
for the proposition that an information is defective when it does not sufficiently describe or identify the allegedly stolen articles.
State v. Bundy 372 P.2d 329 Ariz. 1962
State v. Bundy 372 P.2d 329 Ariz. 1962
an information charging the receipt of stolen property consisting of two sewing machines, a saw, a radio, and two typewriters was held fatally defective since it failed to set out the serial numbers and trade names of the property.
State v. Corvelo 369 P.2d 903 Ariz. 1962
State v. Corvelo 369 P.2d 903 Ariz. 1962
The amended information is fatally defective for the reason that it does not set forth a description of the property alleged, to have been received
State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
se, have reference to the period of time during which such plan or system was in operation, including preliminary matters or agreements involved in the establishment of such system and relating to the method of operation thereunder in support of the exception to the rule that evidence of crimes other than that charged is inadmissible.” , , in support of his position, to wit: “We believe it is true as the defendant contends that unless the goods were shown to have been 'received before those whic
State v. Elias 249 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1952
State v. Elias 249 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1952
* * * ” In this court’s , , we said: “As to defendant’s contention that Jeremy, the thief, was an accomplice in the commission by defendant of the offense of knowingly receiving stolen goods, we hold that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that Jeremy was not an accomplice and we adhere to the test applied and th
State v. Martin 245 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1952
State v. Martin 245 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1952
State v. Kuhnley, Ariz., ; , ; , 256 P. 1048 .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by