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. Childress, 274 P.2d 333.

29 citing documents.

  • Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman 306 P.3d 4 Ariz. 2013
  • Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman 306 P.3d 4 Ariz. 2013
    § 28-1381(G); (“Sobriety of an individual decreases as the percentage of alcohol in his blood increases.”).
  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    (statutory presumption from proof of alcoholic content of blood); , (statutory presumption that income tax return was signed by the person whose name is signed to it).
  • State v. Klausner 978 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Klausner 978 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp. 630 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp. 630 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    As such, the presumption is not unlike those allowed in other areas of criminal law such as the presumption of intoxication from proof of the presence of 0.15 percent or more by weight of alcohol in a person’s blood, , , 46 A.L.R.2d 1169 (1954), the *222 presumption of sanity in criminal prosecutions, , or the presumption that driving in excess of the posted speed limit is unreasonable and unlawful.
  • State v. Aranda 574 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Aranda 574 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    where he said “The presumption of innocence always gives way in the face of facts to the contrary proved beyond a reasonable doubt, else there could never be a conviction for crime.” Third, the Supreme Court Order of April 17, 1973, which adopted “The 1973 Rules of Criminal Procedure” di
  • State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    457 , (possession of burglary tools as prima facie evidence of intent to use them); Fitzgerald v. State, 339 So.2d 209 (Fla.1976) (intent to deprive inferred from failure to return a rented car at time agreed); (verbal representation as prima facie evidence that one is armed); , (statutory presumption arising from proof of alcohol content of blood).
  • State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Baker v. State 494 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Baker v. State 494 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 193 (1960).
  • State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
    As this Court held, , : “Finally, we do not perceive any conflict between the instruction that upon proof of one fact another fact is presumed, and the instruction that the law does not presume the guilt of one accused of crime.
  • State v. Wood 435 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Wood 435 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    46 A.L.R.2d 1169 (1954).
  • State v. Shepard 405 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Shepard 405 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    * * * ” In 1954 , , 46 A.L.R.2d 1169 , stated on page 7 of the Arizona Reports, 274 P.2d on page 337: “ * * * the constitutional provision * * * that the trial judge shall not comment upon the evidence, means no more than that the trial judge is prohibited from action or words having the effect of conveying to the jury t
  • Elfbrandt v. Russell 381 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Noe 381 P.2d 99 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Noe 381 P.2d 99 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Bundy 372 P.2d 329 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Bundy 372 P.2d 329 Ariz. 1962
    46 A.L.R.2d 1169 (1954).
  • State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961