Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hernandez, 320 P.2d 467.

57 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jose Adrian Agundez-Martinez 540 P.3d 1205 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Jose Adrian Agundez-Martinez 540 P.3d 1205 Ariz. 2024
State v. Agundez-Martinez 524 P.3d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Agundez-Martinez 524 P.3d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶18 Our supreme court first addressed a
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
¶12 Morgan’s analysis comports with this Court’s current rule, which requires only sufficient corroborating evidence “to warrant a reasonable inference that the crime charged was actually committed.” see also Hall, 204 Ariz. at 453 ¶ 43, 65 P.3d at 101; Chappell, 225 Ariz. at 234 ¶ 9, 236 P.3d at 1181; Gillies, 135 Ariz. at 506, 662 P.2d at 1013.
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
The evidence, however, must support “a reasonable inference that the crime charged was actually committed by some person.” , -25, ¶¶ 17-19 , -90 (App.2002) (holding that the State’s evidence that the defendant possessed narcotic drugs was insufficient to raise a reasonable inference that the charged crimes — possession for sale and transportation fo
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
297 P. 1029, 1034 (1931)
State v. Flores 42 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Flores 42 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(corpus delicti requires “reasonable inference that the crime charged was actually committed by some person”); , (“It is ...
State v. McKeon 38 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA 6 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA 6 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Gillies, 135 Ariz. at 506 , 662 P.2d at 1013
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 933 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 933 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
Although “in capital cases appellate courts are prone to scrutinize [improper statements] more carefully,” , 297 P. 1029, 1036 (1931), overruled on other grounds, , we do not believe that the prosecutor’s behavior, albeit unnecessary and inappropriate, rose to the level of reversible error.
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. 102091-01 783 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. 102091-01 783 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
The state meets this burden by presenting independent evidence which “is sufficient, assuming it is true, to warrant a reasonable inference that the crime charged was actually committed by some person.”
Gammons v. Berlat 696 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1985
Gammons v. Berlat 696 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1985
297 P. 1029 (1931), vacated on other grounds
State v. Bice 620 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Bice 620 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
the court stated that before the state can use a confession or incriminating statement of a defendant, other evidence besides the confession or statement tending to prove the corpus delicti must be submitted, i. e., that someone committed the crime for which the defendant is charged and to which
State v. Loyd 574 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Loyd 574 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Janise 570 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1977
State v. Janise 570 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1977
State v. Gambrell 568 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Gambrell 568 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Hinkle 550 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Hinkle 550 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
the Supreme Court stated : “It is generally held that the independent evidence does not have to prove corpus *564 delicti beyond a reasonable doubt,- but that some corroboration of the confession or statements is necessary.
State v. Cook 547 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Cook 547 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
He concludes that since the corpus delicti of a crime must be proved by evidence independent of a defendant’s confession, , and that there was no other evidence showing entry in the nighttime, his conviction must be reduced to second degree burglary.
State v. Wilson 548 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1976
State v. Wilson 548 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1976
State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1975
State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1975
State v. Turrubiates 542 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Turrubiates 542 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Pineda 519 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1974
State v. Pineda 519 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1974
State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
The evidence must he independent of the confession, , although it may be circumstantial or inferential.
State v. Hankey 402 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1965
State v. Hankey 402 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1965
: “It is generally held that the independent evidence does not have to prove corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt, but that some corroboration of the confession or statements is necessary.
State v. Jones 388 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1964
State v. Jones 388 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1964
State v. Paramo 376 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1962