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. Vallejos, 358 P.2d 178.

78 citing documents.

  • Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    The caveat to that principle, however, is that we “follow the California cases in so far as their reasoning is sound.”
  • State v. Burciaga 705 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Burciaga 705 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. MacK 654 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. MacK 654 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    Appellant, however, , which had used a *246 “transactional test” where if one criminal act is done for the purpose of completing a second criminal act, it will be considered one transaction permitting but one conviction.
  • State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    (defendant claimed he had possession of narcotics only because he was in the process of removing it from the premises); , (defendant claimed entrapment).
  • State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Young 564 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Young 564 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
    holding that convictions for both possession and sale of marijuana may be sustained where the possession was not solely for the purpose of that particular sale.
  • State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
    this court held that proof of the acts of possession or sale are sufficient to show intent and therefore would exclude evidence of other crimes.
  • State v. Ross 540 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ross 540 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    stated: “Ordinarily proof of the acts of possession or sale are sufficient to show intent and therefore would exclude evidence of other crimes.
  • State v. Cox 522 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Cox 522 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Clemons 521 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Clemons 521 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1974
    When such condition exists we have held that ‘evidence of other offenses of a similar nature committed by the defendant is admissible for the purpose of proving intent.’ ”
  • State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
    where we stated: “As a general rule evidence of separate and distinct crimes is inadmissible.
  • State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
    State v. Dowthard, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Kountz 501 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Kountz 501 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
    State v. Farrell, 1 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Tinghitella 491 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Tinghitella 491 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1971
    This court has held that “[i]n the absence of a case in this jurisdiction construing this section, we will follow the California cases in so far as their reasoning is sound.”
  • State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Price 477 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Price 477 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Berryman 475 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1970
    we held: “The time span in which the acts were committed is immaterial, so long as the State can prove each act was composed of the necessary criminal elements.” , .
  • State v. Hanshe 466 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Hanshe 466 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1970
  • 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
    In support of his contention that the subsequent prosecution is barred because it arose out of the same transaction’ for which he had already been prosecuted, , and State v. Counterman, 8 Ariz.App.
  • 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
    6 , (contributing to delinquency of minor, permitting life and helth (sic)’of child to be neglected and failure to provide) , (rape and incest) , (possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale) , (two counts of obtaining money by false pretenses) “ , which holds the sta