Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Robinson, 360 P.2d 474.
- State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Purcell 572 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1977
-
State v. Purcell
572 P.2d 439
Ariz. 1977
In this case, the photographs were probative in several ways: they corroborated and explained testimony, Ferrari, supra; they aided the jury in understanding the circumstances of the crime, , such information could assist the jury in determining whether the killing was a manslaughter, first or second degree murder, or whether appellant might have been insane at the time of the killing.
- State v. Zaerr 521 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Zaerr 521 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
-
State v. Thomas
515 P.2d 865
Ariz. 1973
410 , to identify the victim, , to show the nature and location of the fatal injury, State v. Robinson, supra; to help determine the degree or atrociousness of the crime, People v. Keeling, 152 Cal.App.2d 4 , to corroborate state witnesses, State v. Hudson, 38 N.J.
- State v. Mohr 476 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Mohr 476 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
-
State v. Chambers
428 P.2d 91
Ariz. 1967
1938 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1024 ; , ; , ; State v. Lee, supra; , ; , 299 P. 682 .
- State v. Copley 418 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Copley
418 P.2d 579
Ariz. 1966
Photographs of the body of deceased are admissible “ * * * to show how the murder was committed and to aid the jury in understanding the testimony of the witnesses.” , ; , .
- State v. Janovic 417 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Janovic
417 P.2d 527
Ariz. 1966
625 , 15 L.Ed.2d 535 ; State v. Robinson, 89 * P.2d 474 ; , ; , .
- State v. Hunt 406 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
-
State v. Hunt
406 P.2d 208
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
We agree with and are bound by the pronouncements of our Supreme Court that an order granting or denying a motion for change of venue lies wholly within the discretion of the trial court, , and that there is a legal presumption that at the time of trial defendants can be accorded a fair and impartial trial in the county in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, and that in order to overcome this presumption the petitioner must make it “affirmatively” appear that there i
- 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
- State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Goodyear
404 P.2d 397
Ariz. 1965
and Annot., 73 A.L.R.2d 769 ‘Admissibility of Photograph of Corpse’ etc.” 94 Ariz. at 386 , 385 P.2d at 518 .
- State v. McGilbry 392 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1964
-
State v. McGilbry
392 P.2d 297
Ariz. 1964
“ ‘The rule against admission of statements not voluntarily made applies only to confessions and not to statements against interest.’ , .” , .
- State v. Barker 385 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1963
-
State v. Barker
385 P.2d 516
Ariz. 1963
and Annot, 73 A.L.R.2d 769 “Admissibility of Photograph of Corpse” etc. It is urged that the court erred in failing to grant appellant’s motion for a mistrial on the grounds that the jury at one time submitted inconsistent verdicts.
- State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963
- State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963
- State v. Fields 373 P.2d 363 Ariz. 1962
-
State v. Fields
373 P.2d 363
Ariz. 1962
The State makes much of the fact that the defendant sought out Alexander and his companions and argues that he was the aggressor and therefore this case must be governed by the rule of the cases which deny the defense of self-defense to one initiating an altercation unless he has withdrawn from the quarrel prior to the attack defended against, , , , 161 P. 878 (1916).
- State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
- State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962