Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Evans, 356 P.2d 1106.

132 citing documents.

State v. Brookshire 452 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1969
State v. Brookshire 452 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1969
State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
: “It is an accepted rule of law that appellate courts will only consider such questions as were raised at the trial with respect to errors or omissions in the giving of instructions.
State v. Roderick 448 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Roderick 448 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In view of the approval given by our Supreme Court to the flight instruction, , and because there was no objection to the instruction on the grounds it failed to include the defendant’s explanation, , we find no error.
State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Rule 272, R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.; and Rule 51, R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.
State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
State v. Stout 425 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Stout 425 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Baca 425 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
State v. Baca 425 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
State v. Smith 420 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1966
State v. Smith 420 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1966
Milam v. Milam 419 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1966
Milam v. Milam 419 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1966
See Rule 51(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., , .
State v. Maynard 418 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1966
State v. Maynard 418 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1966
State v. Thompson 415 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1966
State v. Thompson 415 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1966
State v. Cofhlin 412 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Cofhlin 412 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Bird 407 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1965
State v. Bird 407 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1965
State v. Douglas 407 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Douglas 407 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1965
State v. Maxwell; , ; , .
State v. Johnson 406 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1965
State v. Johnson 406 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1965
Rule 272, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A. R.S.; Rule 51, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.; 5 Wharton, Criminal Law Procedure, § 2097.
State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
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
Circumstantial evidence is competent in a criminal case, , , 253 P. 629 (1927).
State v. DeVinney 403 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1965
State v. DeVinney 403 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1965
The State points out that this was not urged in support of his motion for a directed verdict at trial and it cannot now be raised for the first time on appeal, , , , , in support thereof.
State v. Lovell 399 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1965
State v. Lovell 399 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1965
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
1 The material facts, viewed “ * * * in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction,” ,.
State v. Goldthorpe 395 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1964
State v. Goldthorpe 395 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1964