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. Mandel, 278 P.2d 413.

36 citing documents.

  • Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (“The general rule is that solicitation alone or mere preparation is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for an attempt to commit a crime.”).3 ¶27 In sum, although I agree that solicitation to commit child molestation may constitute a dangerous crime against children, I dissent for the
  • State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    See § 13 — 1001(A)(2); , (“A person can, with a culpable state of mind, take an intentional step toward committing first degree murder without exerting or threatening to exert physical force on another person.”); , (wife convicted of attempted murder in murder for hire plot when no physical harm came to husband because hit man contacted police).
  • State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Henry 624 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Henry 624 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    13-108; 6 P.2d 413 (1954).
  • State v. Dale 590 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Dale 590 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1979
    : “The question is whether under the * * circumstances the defendant committed an overt act, took steps or did things that if not interrupted would have resulted in the commission of the crime.
  • State v. Cox 543 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Cox 543 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Govorko 533 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Govorko 533 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    it was held that factual impossibility would not bar conviction for criminal attempt.
  • State v. Durgin 517 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Durgin 517 P.2d 1246 Ariz. 1974
    State v. Lenahan, 12 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Howell 506 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Howell 506 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
    53 A.L.R.2d 619 (1954); State v. Vann, 11 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Lenahan 471 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Lenahan 471 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    *450 We point out that the Arizona Supreme Court has answered this contention at least twice
  • State v. Vann 463 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Vann 463 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Williams 440 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Williams 440 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Denton 420 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Denton 420 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1966
    This court rejected defendant’s , in which we held that:.
  • State v. Bandy 415 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Bandy 415 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    ttempted is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five years or more or by imprisonment in the county jail, by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail, as the case may be, for a term not exceeding one half' the longest term *458 of imprisonment prescribed upon conviction of the offense so attempted.” , in which case the conviction was for attempted murder, which the Court resolved to be second degree murder and held as follows: “ * * * The contention has often been mad
  • State v. McCullough 382 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. McCullough 382 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1963