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. Thomas, 275 P.2d 408.

101 citing documents.

  • State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    ileged when acquired by a physician or surgeon in a consultation with the patient under circumstances in which “it is intended that the communication be private and confidential.” -40 , -27 (1988) (“The presence of third parties can eliminate the confidential character of the [communication] and destroy the privilege.”)
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • R.M. v. L.C. 805 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Matter of Estate of RC 805 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Matter of Estate of RC 805 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    held that a judicial confession or admission connected with the crime made in court is admissible, , 208 P. 412 (1922): `It is well settled that any statements made by a defendant prior to his trial, having the effect of an admission, connecting him with
  • R.M. v. L.C. 805 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    held that a judicial confession or admission connected with the crime made in court is admissible, , 208 P. 412 (1922): ‘It is well settled that any statements made by a defendant prior to his trial, having the effect of an admission, connecting him with
  • State v. Munson 631 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Munson 631 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    *497 While it appears to be the general rule that involuntary manslaughter should be pleaded with specificity 2 , overruled on other grounds, , indicates that actual notice of the underlying charges may suffice.
  • State v. Stoneman 566 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Stoneman 566 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1977
    we held that a judicial confession or admission connected with the crime made in court is admissible, , 208 P. 412 (1922): “ ‘It is well settled that any statements made by a defendant prior to his trial, having the effect of an admission, connecting him
  • State v. Wilson 548 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Wilson 548 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1976
    and (2) that some person is criminally responsible for the act.’ ”
  • State v. Verdugo 541 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Verdugo 541 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Stolze 539 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Stolze 539 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Edgin 520 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Edgin 520 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1974
    overruled on *419 other grounds
  • State v. Pineda 519 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Pineda 519 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1974
    State v. Hernandez, supra.
  • State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Nielsen 495 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Nielsen 495 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1972
  • Lewin v. Jackson 492 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1972
  • Lewin v. Jackson 492 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1972
    “For information acquired by a physician to be privileged [under the Arizona statutes] it must have been acquired under circumstances from which it appears that the examination was intended to be privileged.” at 63 , at 416 (1954), , Udall, supra, § 93, at p. 145.
  • State v. Brooks 487 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Brooks 487 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Hall 468 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Hall 468 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    All that is necessary, and all that is possible, is that each bit may have enough rational connection with the issue to be considered a factor contributing to an answer.’ ” *151 , wherein the court stated that the objection of remoteness goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility and that to exclude evidence merely because it tends to establish the possibility rather than a probability would produce curious results not heretofore envisioned.
  • State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
    affirmed 356 U.S. 390 , 78 S.Ct.
  • State v. Saiz 447 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Saiz 447 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Abney 440 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Abney 440 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1968
    Although we have held on various occasions that attorneys are given wide latitude in their arguments to the jury ( , ; , ; , ) nevertheless, in closing argument an attorney should never express his personal belief in the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
  • State v. Wright 436 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Wright 436 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1968
    but was not passed upon since felony arraignment before a magistrate does not require a plea, and the statement by defendant “I don’t need a lawyer, I am guilty, I killed the women,” was a voluntary, unrequired judicial confession.
  • State v. Bradley 433 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Bradley 433 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1967
    212 P. 377 (1923) , wherein a statement by defendant’s counsel that defendant within the past 48 hours had informed him that he was unable to remember any of the events leading up to or concerning the commission of the offense charged, and this caused counsel to have serious doubts as to his client’s sanity, was hel
  • State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
    affirmed 356 U.S. 390 , 78 S.Ct.
  • State v. White 426 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. White 426 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1967
    affirmed 356 U.S. 390 , 78 S.Ct.