Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Woolery, 378 P.2d 751.
- State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Intogna
419 P.2d 59
Ariz. 1966
Rule 142, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.
- State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Robison
408 P.2d 29
Ariz. 1965
92 Ariz. at 47 , 373 P.2d at 359 And, , : "The county attorney, in arguing premeditation, said that deceased's minister had given him an idea concerning the case.
- State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Essman 403 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Essman
403 P.2d 540
Ariz. 1965
It takes the position that this question could not be raised by a motion to quash the information, relying on our statement in State v. Woolery, 93 Ariz, 76, 81, , that: “ * * * The question of the sufficiency of the evidence at the preliminary examination before the magistrate may not be raised by a motion to quash the information, , , since it is not one of the enumer
- State v. Peats 397 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Peats 397 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Cravin 395 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Cravin 395 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Boodry 394 P.2d 196 Ariz. 1964
-
State v. Boodry
394 P.2d 196
Ariz. 1964
where the spontaneous utterances of the deceased victim were admitted in evidence.
- State v. Sorrell 388 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Sorrell 388 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1964