Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Daymus, 367 P.2d 647.
- State v. Valenzuela 425 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
-
State v. Valenzuela
425 P.2d 127
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In the Tigue case, all the evidence was circumstantial and the court stated: “ ‘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. Maynard 418 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Maynard 418 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Owen 416 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Owen 416 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
- Kerley Chemical Corp. v. Producers Cotton Oil Co. 406 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- Prevo v. State ex rel. Herman 406 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
-
State v. Hardin
406 P.2d 406
Ariz. 1965
-299 , : “ * * * In Arizona the law is well settled that evidence of other crimes is competent when it tends to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake *59 or accident, identity and common scheme or plan.
- Prevo v. State ex rel. Herman 406 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- Kerley Chemical Corp. v. Producers Cotton Oil Co. 406 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
- State v. DeVinney 403 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. DeVinney
403 P.2d 921
Ariz. 1965
wherein we pointed out that such evidence tended to establish an essential element of the offense charged.
- State v. Morales 402 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Morales
402 P.2d 998
Ariz. 1965
At the trial, and here, -303 , .
- State v. Tigue 386 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1963
-
State v. Tigue
386 P.2d 402
Ariz. 1963
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.)
- State v. Superior Court 385 P.2d 707 Ariz. 1963
- State v. Superior Court 385 P.2d 707 Ariz. 1963
- State v. Daymus 380 P.2d 996 Ariz. 1963
- State v. Daymus 380 P.2d 996 Ariz. 1963
- State v. Zent 376 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1962
-
State v. Zent
376 P.2d 861
Ariz. 1962
we held that the making and delivery of a check amounts to a representation that the check is good and will be paid upon presentation, and a reasonable expectation the check will be paid upon presentation is a good defense.