Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McDaniel, 298 P.2d 798.

48 citing documents.

  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Portillo 876 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Portillo 876 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    in which a prominent newspaperman had said to one of the lawyers for the defense, in the presence of at least five jurors, “I do not like the company you keep.” The defense moved for a mistrial, contending that the remark referred to either the defendant or to other counsel for the defense, and
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    We have not been cited to any cases where such an exception has been made to the general rule of exclusion, similar to the exception regarding incest or other unusual sex offenses
  • State v. Bateman 547 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Bateman 547 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
  • Southwestern Research Corp. v. Caliendo 540 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Southwestern Research Corp. v. Caliendo 540 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
    the Court permitted the admission of evidence of acts of a similar nature in a prosecution for fellatio, the additional acts being similar to that charged.
  • State v. Richardson 501 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Richardson 501 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Parker 470 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Parker 470 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Malumphy 461 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Malumphy 461 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Hughes 456 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Hughes 456 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1969
    This Court was faced with a similar problem of having to examine “bald allegations”
  • State v. Goldsmith 450 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Goldsmith 450 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1969
    we referred to acts which show “specific sexual inclination.” In this case we said: “ , , evidence of acts of sexual relations with girls other than the prosecuting witness was held admissible within the exception pertaining to ev
  • State v. Smallwood 438 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Smallwood 438 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Womack 431 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Womack 431 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Furthermore, , the court said: “ * * * in the prosecution of a particular offense evidence of another crime entirely distinct and independent of that for which he is being tried is neither relevant nor admissible unless proof of one tends to establish the other.” (Emphasis supplied) We hold that the testimony
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
    we said: “ * * * Certain crimes today are recognized as stemming from a specific emotional propensity for sexual aberration.
  • State v. Howard 400 P.2d 332 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Howard 400 P.2d 332 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
    State v. Robinson, supra.
  • State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
    í|í íj» “In cases of the character under discussion, the age and mentality of the subject of an indecent assault is important, and should always be considered in determining the presence or absence of consent.” And once it is determined that the complaining witness “of his own volition participated in the act of fellatio he would in law be an accomplice * *
  • State v. Holman 356 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Holman 356 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Little 350 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Little 350 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1960
    256 P. 1048 ; , ; , ; , ; 2 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 300, 304 (3rd ed.).
  • State v. Finley 338 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1959
  • State v. Finley 338 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1959
  • State v. Colvin 307 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1957
  • State v. Colvin 307 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1957