DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Carroll v. State, 368 P.2d 649.

60 citing documents.

  • State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (explaining that “the circumstances must be such that they are at least consistent with a reasonable inference that defendant knew of the existence of the narcotic which was found, before he may be found guilty of ‘possession’”); (direct and circumstanti
  • State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (drugs found outside an apartment); (drugs found behind a bench outside Sky Harbor airport); (drugs found under the passenger seat of a car containing three people).
  • State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    -14 (1962) (“There must be a presentation of a specific fact from which the [factfinder] may reasonably infer the defendant knew of the existence of the narcotic as found in his immediate vicinity before he may be chargeable with its possession.”).
  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
    (requiring knowledge of presence of narcotic drug for possession conviction); (same).
  • State v. Villalobos Alvarez 745 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Villalobos Alvarez 745 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Donovan 568 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Donovan 568 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Curtis 562 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Curtis 562 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Jenson 562 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Jenson 562 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1977
    : “ , we held that the crime of possession of narcotics requires physical possession or constructive possession with actual knowledge of the presence of the narcotic substance.
  • State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    State v. Carr, 8 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    and State v. Carr, 8 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Moses 537 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Moses 537 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
    which said: “Mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish guilt.
  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    see, Anno., Narcotic — Possession—What Constitutes, 91 A.L.R.2d 810 (1963).
  • State v. Villavicencio 502 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Villavicencio 502 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1972
    we held that the crime of possession of narcotics requires physical possession or constructive possession with actual knowledge of the presence of the narcotic substance.
  • State v. Cunningham 497 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Cunningham 497 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Rios Payan 486 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Hull 486 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Rios Payan 486 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Hull 486 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    and more recently, in applying the foregoing standard, we have stated that the “mere presence without more in an apartment or car, of unobviously placed narcotics will not convict the owner or inhabitant of possession.” (Emphasis supplied).
  • State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
    this court held: “The crime of possession of narcotics requires a physical or constructive possession with actual knowledge of the presence of the narcotic substance.
  • State v. Mendoza 472 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mendoza 472 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Riley 470 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Riley 470 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    State v. Carr, 8 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Spillman 468 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Spillman 468 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1970
    In- addition, testimony was never offered concerning any discussion between Felix and Spillman Which would indicáte a plot, , we held that the mere presence of a defendant at the scene of a. crime-is insufficient to'establish guilt.
  • State v. Valdez Padilla 462 P.2d 82 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Valdez Padilla 462 P.2d 82 Ariz. 1969
    that there must be exclusive possession in the defendant are fully satisfied by the evidence as presented.
  • State v. Parra 456 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Parra 456 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1969
    Carroll v. State [ ] ; People v. Gory, 28 Cal.2d 450 , ; People v. Mack, 12 Ill.2d 151 , 145 N.E.2d 609 .
  • State v. Harris 451 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Harris 451 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    the Supreme Court reversed a possession conviction when the only factors supporting it were defendant’s presence in the area and “a backward movement” of his hand.