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. Wallace, 319 P.2d 529.

64 citing documents.

  • State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
    - 7 - The “slightest evidence” is a low standard that has been defined in the self-defense context as “a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing her life or sustaining great bodily harm.” Lujan, 136 Ariz. at 104, 664 P.2d at 648 ( ).
  • State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    The “slightest evidence” is evidence “tending to prove a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing her life or sustaining great bodily harm.” , see also Dumaine, 162 Ariz. at 404 , 783 P.2d at 1198 .
  • State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    *122 Santanna, 153 Ariz. at 149 , 735 P.2d at 759 (dicta); Young, 109 Ariz. at 223 , 508 P.2d at 53 ; Jackson, 94 Ariz. at 121 , 382 P.2d at 231
  • State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Buggs 806 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Buggs 806 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Wright 786 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Wright 786 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    The “slightest evidence” is that evidence “tending to prove a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing [his] life or sustaining great bodily harm____”
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    The ‘slightest evidence’ is that evidence ‘tending to prove a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger *554 of losing [his] life or sustaining great bodily harm----’
  • State v. Plew 722 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Plew 722 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1986
    The “slightest evidence” is that evidence “tending to prove a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing [his] life or sustaining great bodily harm....”
  • State v. Lámar 698 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Lámar 698 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Lamar 698 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Lamar 698 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Lujan 664 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Lujan 664 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1983
    we defined “slightest evidence” as that “tending to prove a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing her life or sustaining great bodily harm * * Id.
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Kennedy 592 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Kennedy 592 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Montano 571 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Montano 571 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    The extent of examination must necessarily be left to the sound discretion of the trial court to determine the presence or absence of bias and prejudice.”
  • State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    P. 111 (1927); , 125 P. 717 (1912).
  • State v. Hagen 558 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Hagen 558 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Moreno 547 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Moreno 547 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Rather the rule retains long standing Arizona law that “[t]he extent of examination must necessarily be left to the sound discretion of the trial court to determine the presence *184 or absence of bias or prejudice.”
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
    Rather the rule retains long standing Arizona law that “[t]he extent of examination must necessarily be left to the sound discretion of the trial court to determine the presence or absence of bias and prejudice.”
  • State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    The trial court is allowed a discretion in determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, , , and the record clearly supports the trial court’s decision.
  • State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
    at 474 , at 833 (1968); at 222 , at 530 (1957).
  • State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
    at 474 , at 833 (1968); at 222 , at 530 (1957).
  • State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. O'Dell Fowler 422 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. O'Dell Fowler 422 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1967
    we said that when a man is charged with a homicide, the accused has a right to support his defense with all the circumstances of the occurrence.
  • State v. Monks 405 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Monks 405 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965