Cited by

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

57 citing documents.

State v. Paramo 376 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1962
The defendant complains that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the defendant’s crime without his confession, therefore a verdict should have been granted in his favor, , .
State v. Weis 375 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1962
State v. Weis 375 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1962
State v. Navarro 367 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1961
State v. Navarro 367 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1961
The general rule is that “ * * * before the state can use a confession or incriminating statements of a defendant there must be submitted other evidence outside the confession or statements tending to prove corpus delicti, i. e., that someone committed the crime with which the defendant is charged and which he has confessed or admitted.”
State v. Van Bogart 331 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1958
State v. Van Bogart 331 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1958
that the correct rule on “ * * * the foundational proof by independent evidence is adequate for the purpose of allowing the use of confession or incriminating statements (of the defendant) if it is sufficient, assuming it is true, to warrant a reasonable inference that the crime charged was actua