Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Vallejos, 358 P.2d 178.
- State v. Tisnado 458 P.2d 957 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Tisnado 458 P.2d 957 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Sheffield 454 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Sheffield 454 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- State v. Valenzuela 447 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
-
State v. Valenzuela
447 P.2d 259
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Our Supreme Court considered a , and refused to recede from the rationale of its prior decisions in Hutton, supra
- State v. Duplain 425 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1967
- State v. Duplain 425 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1967
- State v. Ballesteros 413 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Ballesteros
413 P.2d 739
Ariz. 1966
and Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 115, page 228.
- State v. Mohon 412 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
- State v. Mohon 412 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
- State v. Green 403 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Green
403 P.2d 809
Ariz. 1965
*257 Appellant urges this Court to likewise adopt this interpretation pointing out that if State v. Hutton, supra, had been decided after the McFarland and Neal cases, supra, , , wherein we said : “This section is nearly identical with the corresponding California statute.
- State v. Farrell 399 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
- State v. Farrell 399 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
- State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Corrales 391 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Corrales 391 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Langley 371 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1962
- State v. Langley 371 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1962
- State v. Simmering 361 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1961
-
State v. Simmering
361 P.2d 4
Ariz. 1961
3 ; , ; , 358 P .2d 178.