Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lubetkin, 276 P.2d 520.

37 citing documents.

State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
In Re the Appeals in Maricopa County Juvenile Actions No. JV119590 & No. JV118201 810 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Kuhn v. Smith 739 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Kuhn v. Smith 739 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
1855 , 26 L.Ed.2d 275 (1970)
State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Godwin v. Farmers Insurance Co. of America 631 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Godwin v. Farmers Insurance Co. of America 631 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Lamb 497 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Lamb 497 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Smith 493 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1972
State v. Smith 493 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1972
d ought to reasonably doubt seriously the correctness of a judgment which is not concurred in by most of those with whom they are associated, and distrust the weight and sufficiency of that evidence which fails to carry conviction to the minds of their fellow jurors’ * This Court has dealt with this kind of instruction before, at first approving of it, State v. Voeckell, supra; , , , under the facts of that case the instruction was held to be error and the use of the instruction was condemned.
State v. Gause 489 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1971
State v. Gause 489 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1971
that in the absence of a showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that a magistrate has performed his official duties pursuant to the law and his oath of office.
State v. Washington 447 P.2d 863 Ariz. 1968
State v. Washington 447 P.2d 863 Ariz. 1968
State v. White 423 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1967
State v. White 423 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
State v. Branham 418 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Branham 418 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 169
State v. Cumbo 396 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1964
State v. Cumbo 396 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1964
State v. Hunt, supra; State v. Loftis, supra; , ; , ; , .
State v. Jacobs 380 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1963
State v. Jacobs 380 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1963
a similar argument was raised and rejected.
State v. De Marinis 375 P.2d 574 Ariz. 1962
State v. De Marinis 375 P.2d 574 Ariz. 1962
State v. Evans 356 P.2d 1106 Ariz. 1960
State v. Evans 356 P.2d 1106 Ariz. 1960
Although the Voeckell instruction had been approved as technically correct in several opinions of this court, , , , , , , we reversed State v. Thomas with directions to grant a new trial for the reason that: “ * * * under the salient facts recited (it) could and did infer to the jury the court’s anxiety for it to arrive at some verdict.” , .
State v. Thomas 342 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1959
State v. Thomas 342 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1959
State v. Craft 333 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1958
State v. Craft 333 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1958
Application of Vigileos v. State 330 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1958
Application of Vigileos v. State 330 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1958
The fact that a preliminary examination was neither had nor waived shall in no case invalidate any information in any court unless the defendant objects to such information *408 because of such fact before pleading to the merits.” , ; , .