Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dutton, 318 P.2d 667.

56 citing documents.

State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
It is the function of the jury to pass upon the strength or weakness of the identification.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith 762 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
State v. Smith 762 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
-70 (1957), the court stated: There is somewhat of a dearth of authority in this jurisdiction on the law governing identification; however, , 222 P. 414, 415 [1924] (there the question involved was identification
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Hall 665 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Hall 665 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Nieto 578 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Nieto 578 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Guiliani 540 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Guiliani 540 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
challenged the court’s submission of the question of his guilt to the jury, claiming that the evidence did not sufficiently identify him as the perpetrator of the crime.
State v. Diaz 514 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1973
State v. Diaz 514 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1973
there a reasonable probability that the verdict might have been different if the error had not been committed?’
State v. McMurry 513 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. McMurry 513 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969
State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969
State v. Wilmore 459 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Wilmore 459 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Hickson 450 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hickson 450 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1969
State v. Forteson 447 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Forteson 447 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
and see People v. Stinson, 214 Cal.App.2d.
State v. Stotts 446 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Stotts 446 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Brooks 445 P.2d 831 Ariz. 1968
State v. Brooks 445 P.2d 831 Ariz. 1968
The test in determining whether error was so prejudicial to the rights of defendant as to require reversal has been stated many times by this Court: “Is there a reasonable probability that the verdict might have been different if the error had not been committed ?”
State v. Randall 443 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Randall 443 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Constitution, Art. VI, § 27, , but we feel that the prejudice here is sufficient to warrant a reversal.
State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
we said: “Turning to reported cases from other jurisdictions it appears to be well settled that identification of a defendant, necessary to support a conviction, need only comply with the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
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. Mendibles 428 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Mendibles 428 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Article 6, Section 27 of the Arizona State Constitution, A.R.S., provides : “No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleading or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.” , the Supreme Court of this State said: “In applying this constitutional provision our prior decisions, , , at page 66, , at page 930, have laid down this test: had the error pointed
State v. Ybarra 398 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1965
State v. Ybarra 398 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1965
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
State v. Garcia 393 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1964
State v. Garcia 393 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1964
86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ; , ; , , cert, denied 339 U.S. 973 , 70 S.Ct.