Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Daymus, 367 P.2d 647.

76 citing documents.

Brown v. Dembow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brown v. Dembow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The Arizona common-law rule was “that convictions for misdemeanors were not admissible for impeachment.” Malloy, 131 Ariz. at 127 (-03 (1961)); (“on cross- examination specific acts of misconduct cannot be shown unless the witness has been convicted of” a “felonious crime”) (citing cases).
State v. Clough 829 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Clough 829 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
247 P. 1099 (1926); and State v. Stout, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
United States v. Berry, 627 F.2d 193 (9th Cir.1980), cert.
State v. Salazar 707 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Salazar 707 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
United States v. Berry, 627 F.2d 193 (9th Cir.1980) cert.
State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
McBath & Young Wrecking Co. v. Industrial Commission 598 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
McBath & Young Wrecking Co. v. Industrial Commission 598 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Rather it is the duty of the one offering the evidence to inform the court as to its nature, purpose and legal connection with the issue involved.”
State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
P.2d 139 (1967); , State v. Babineaux, 22 Ariz.App.
State v. Belcher 514 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1973
State v. Belcher 514 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1973
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
The court in State v. Turner, supra, , , , in discussing the admissibility of other criminal acts.
State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
448 , 13 L.Ed.2d 546 ; , .
State v. Love 474 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1970
State v. Love 474 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1970
at 306 , at 655 (1961): “The weight of authority is that the court on its own motion is under a duty to give proper instructions as to the effect of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution must rely exclusively on circumstantial evidence to convict.” (Emphasis supplied.)
State v. Pina 469 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Pina 469 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
However, as stated in Tigue, supra, , this rule applies only where the prosecution must rely solely on circumstantial evidence to convict.
State v. White 465 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. White 465 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Moore 456 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1969
State v. Moore 456 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1969
“A He is in the white T-shirt, at the far table.” , : “ * * * The weight of authority is that the court on its own motion is under a duty to give proper instructions as to the effect of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution must rely exclusively on circumstantial evidence to convict.
State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
* well settled that evidence of other crimes is competent when it tends to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity and common scheme or plan.” , ; , ; , [ , ]
State v. Stout 448 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Stout 448 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
The check, drawn and delivered by him, carried with it a representation that it was good
State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
The Arizona Supreme Court has stated: “ * * * , , 655: “ ‘The weight of authority is that the court on its own motion is under a duty to give proper instructions as to the effect of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution must rely exclusively on circumstantial evidence to convict.’ ” (Emphasis supplied) , 386
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
State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
is the most recent Arizona Supreme Court case which discusses these problems extensively.
State v. Woody 435 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Woody 435 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hughes 426 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hughes 426 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1967