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. Westbrook, 285 P.2d 161.

76 citing documents.

  • State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
    An acquittal or conviction *378 and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” , , in interpreting § 43-6101, Ariz. Code Ann. (1939), which was identical to A.R.S.
  • State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Hill 463 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Hill 463 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Mays 459 P.2d 307 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Mays 459 P.2d 307 Ariz. 1969
    * * * ” , , 53 A.L.R.2d 619 (1954), we construed.
  • State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    (burglary and rape) , (statutory rape and lewd and lascivious acts) *430 , ; (burglary and theft) , (robbery and grand theft) , , [ 53 A.L.R.2d 619 ] (1955); (burglary and conspiring to commit burglary) , (fellatio and lewd and lascivious conduct based on different acts) State v. Payne, 7 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Sutton 452 P.2d 110 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Sutton 452 P.2d 110 Ariz. 1969
    1 , , 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. Enriquez 448 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Enriquez 448 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1968
    An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” , , 53 A.L.R.2d 619 (1954), we construed the above statute.
  • State v. Payne 436 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Payne 436 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Carpenter 405 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Carpenter 405 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    More succinctly, our Supreme Court has stated this proposition as follows : “ * * * The test to be applied is simple: Is the first offense one that cannot be committed without necessarily committing the second?” , , 53 A.L.R.2d 619 (1954).
  • State v. Harvey 402 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Harvey 402 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1965
    See e. g., , , , 33 A.L.R.2d 619 (1954).
  • State v. McCullough 382 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. McCullough 382 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Hutton 349 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Hutton 349 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Romero 336 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1959