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. Bagby, 316 P.2d 941.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
    P.2d 205 ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, ‘[i]n the last analysis .
  • State v. Canada 481 P.2d 859 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Canada 481 P.2d 859 Ariz. 1971
    We have held that such evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , , and may be circumstantial, , .
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
    P.2d 205 ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, ‘[i]n the last analysis * * * the facts of each case must govern.’ State v. Sheldon, supra, 91 Ariz. at p. 79 , 369 P.2d at p. 922 .” There was evidence corroborating the testimony of the acco
  • State v. Oliver 452 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Oliver 452 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    P.2d 205 ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, “[i]n the last analysis.
  • State v. Wilson 439 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Wilson 439 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    P.2d 205 ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, ‘[i]n the last analysis * * * the facts of each case must govern.’ State v. Sheldon, supra, 91 Ariz. at p. 79 , 369 P.2d at p. 922 .” The elements which, in this case, must be established to c
  • 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
    P.2d 205 ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, ‘[i]n the last analysis * * * the facts of each case must govern.’ State v. Sheldon, supra, 91 Ariz. at p. 79 , 369 P.2d at p. 922 .” Applying these rules to the case at issue, we hold that th
  • State v. Springer 428 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Springer 428 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1967
    P.2d 205 ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, “[i]n the last analysis * * * the facts of each case must govern.” State v. Sheldon, supra, 91 Ariz. at p. 79 , 369 P.2d at p. 922 .
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Goldthorpe 395 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Goldthorpe 395 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Sorrell 388 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Sorrell 388 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Turner 383 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Turner 383 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
    -59 , , -320 (1936); , 232 P. 887, 891 , rev’d on other grounds