Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Coey, 309 P.2d 260.

56 citing documents.

Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“It is primarily the responsibility of the parties and not the court to insure that witnesses are present at the time of trial.”).
McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc. 34 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc. 34 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
(Ending no reversible error in admission of hearsay statement bearing on pre-meditation).
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Marshall 778 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Marshall 778 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
M. Udall & J. Livermore, supra § 21 at 26; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 609 at 175 (13th ed. 1973).
State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
Globe American Casualty Co. v. Lyons 641 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Globe American Casualty Co. v. Lyons 641 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
We have held as well that “[i]n resolving the issue of premeditation and deliberation the jury is authorized to take into consideration the conduct of the defendant, both before and after, as well as at the time of the homicide, and all attending circumstances.” , accord, Duonnolo v. State, 397 A.2d 126 (Del.1978); State v. Tikka, 8 Wash.App.
Johnson v. Nelson 627 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Johnson v. Nelson 627 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Jackson 517 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Jackson 517 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. *182 Coey, , 5 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.) §§ 1361, 1362.
State v. Corley 495 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1972
State v. Corley 495 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1972
State v. Peoples 461 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1969
State v. Peoples 461 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1969
See Criminal Rules 241 et seq., 17 A.R.S.
State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
State v. McGill 419 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1966
State v. McGill 419 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1966
State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
372 , 7 *279 L.Ed.2d 196; , ; , ; , .
State v. Jackson 412 P.2d 36 Ariz. 1966
State v. Jackson 412 P.2d 36 Ariz. 1966
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
we said: “The rule is well settled in this jurisdiction that in cases of this kind the testimony of a lay witness who has had an opportunity to observe the past conduct and history of a defendant is as admissible on the issue of whether he was legally insane at -the time he committed the criminal
State v. Schantz 403 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1965
State v. Wallace 403 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1965
State v. Schantz 403 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1965
372 , 7 L.Ed.2d 196 ; , ; , ; State v. Eisenstein, 72.
State v. Wallace 403 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1965
See Criminal Rules 241, et seq., 17 A.R.S.
State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1965
State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1965
We have previously held that the opinion of a lay witness is admissible where sanity is an issue, , .
Hawkins v. Thornton 375 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1962
Hawkins v. Thornton 375 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1962