DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Westbrook, 285 P.2d 161.

76 citing documents.

  • Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa 618 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1980
  • Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa 618 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1980
    An act of sexual contact.” , , 53 A.L.R.2d 619 (1954).
  • State v. Gray 595 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Johnson 584 P.2d 1161 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Johnson 584 P.2d 1161 Ariz. 1978
    State v. Aguirre, 27 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
    “The test for determining whether one offense is included in another offense was *592 , , 53 A.L. R.2d 619 (1954): ‘The test to be applied is simple: Is the first offense one that cannot be committed without necessarily committing the second?’ 79 Ariz. at 119 , 285 P.2d at 162 .”
  • State v. Wilson 584 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Wilson 584 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Arnold 565 P.2d 1282 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Arnold 565 P.2d 1282 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Sanders 564 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Sanders 564 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Butrick 558 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Butrick 558 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    State v. Salazar, 24 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Aguirre 557 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Aguirre 557 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • 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
  • In Re the Appeal in Marcopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-75755 523 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1974
  • In Re the Appeal in Marcopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-75755 523 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    522 , , , 53 A.L.R.2d 619 (1954).
  • State v. Jorgenson 502 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Jorgenson 502 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1972
    An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” This court recently applied § 13-1641 in a similar case, , and reaffirmed Arizona’s commitment to the “identical elements” test
  • Benson v. State ex rel. Eyman 502 P.2d 1332 Ariz. 1972
  • Benson v. State ex rel. Eyman 502 P.2d 1332 Ariz. 1972
    Moreover, this court must presume that the Maricopa County Superi- or Court Judge acted in accord with the current (1955) interpretation of the “double punishment” statute
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
    The test to determine whether one offense is included within another is “whether the first offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the second.” , , 53 A.L.R.2d 619 (1954)
  • 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
    our Supreme Court reiterated that the test to be applied for the determination of this; issue is to “eliminate the elements in one-charge and determine whether the facts-left would support the other charge.” This-test is a
  • State v. Woody 496 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Woody 496 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Jernigan 492 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Jernigan 492 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1972
    “The practical'test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether thé' facts left would support the other charge.” State v. George, 491 P. 2d at 839 ( , ).
  • State v. Horton 492 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Horton 492 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Tinghitella 491 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Tinghitella 491 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1971
    the court approved an “identical elements test”: “We need to determine, then, whether the two crimes charged in this case are based on the same act or omission, in other words, whether the two crimes have identical components.
  • State v. George 491 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. George 491 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1971
    § 13-1641 provides that an “act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under either, but in no event under more than one.” at 495 , at 520 (1970), this Court, reaffirming the “identical elements test” , which test was to be used in determining whether § 13-1641 had been violated, stated: “The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.” *7 Applying
  • State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Shannon 478 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Shannon 478 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1970
    153 A.L.R.2d 619 , to determine if the trial court must instruct on lesser, included offenses.
  • 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. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970