Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hutton, 349 P.2d 187.

62 citing documents.

State v. Coleman 711 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Coleman 711 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
The crimes of burglary and theft often go hand-in-hand but are two distinct crimes, , *580 (decided under the pre-1978 Criminal Code).
State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
State v. Arnold 565 P.2d 1282 Ariz. 1977
State v. Arnold 565 P.2d 1282 Ariz. 1977
State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Forteson, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Madrid 552 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1976
State v. Madrid 552 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1976
State v. *292 Hutton, P.2d 187 (1960).
State v. Taylor 551 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Taylor 551 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Kovacevich 547 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Kovacevich 547 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
the defendant had burglarized a building and stolen a saddle from it.
State v. Hill 545 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Hill 545 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Miller 501 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1972
State v. Miller 501 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1972
To constitute burglary it is not necessary that theft be committed.”
State v. Brooks 487 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1971
State v. Brooks 487 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1971
State v. Seelen 485 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1971
State v. Seelen 485 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1971
State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Burchett 484 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
State v. Burchett 484 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” In State v. Boag, supra, , , we said: “ ‘ * * * The above statute covers a situation where the same act is punishable in different ways under different sections of the law.
Vaughn v. State 473 P.2d 817 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Vaughn v. State 473 P.2d 817 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Payne, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Hill 463 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Hill 463 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
(burglary and rape); , (burglary and theft); , (possession of narcotics, sale of narcotics and possession incidental to sale as included); , (kidnapping with intent to rape and rape).
State v. Rood 462 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Rood 462 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Suarez 461 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Suarez 461 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
the Arizona Supreme Court held that there was no error in charging both burglary and grand theft.
State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
(burglary and rape) , (statutory rape and lewd and lascivious acts) *430 , ; (burglary and theft) , (robbery and grand theft) , , [ 53 A.L.R.2d 619 ] (1955); (burglary and conspiring to commit burglary) , (fellatio and l
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
is directly in point, and refutes defendant’s contention.
State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
The elements constituting robbery and grand theft-auto, are not entirely different, nor may robbery occur without the taking of personal property.
State v. Enriquez 448 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1968
State v. Enriquez 448 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1968
the defendant was convicted of burglary and grand theft.
State v. Valenzuela 447 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Forteson 447 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968