Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hunt, 370 P.2d 642.

39 citing documents.

State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Archer 534 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Archer 534 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
State v. Noble 514 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1973
State v. Noble 514 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1973
State v. Snodgrass 507 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Snodgrass 507 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Harris, 9 Ariz.App.
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. Hull 486 P.2d 814 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
as well as other cases cited by the defendant, in that the evidence disclosed that all defendants were in fact jointly charged with the same offense, provable by the same evidence.
State v. Enriquez 475 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1970
State v. Enriquez 475 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1970
State v. Resnick 177 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1970
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
we said: “The offense of possession of a narcotic drug requires a physical or constructive possession with actual knowledge of its presence.
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
And, , the Supreme Court stated that the mere presence of the defendant where a drug was found is insufficient evidence for conviction.
State v. Urias 446 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Urias 446 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
(citations omitted) * * * Mere presence at a place where a narcotic drug is found is insufficient to show knowledge of its presence.”
State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960), , , and State v. Kellington, supra.
State v. Farmer 400 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1965
State v. Farmer 400 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1965
where we held that the door had not been opened to prior crime evidence.
State v. Curry 398 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1965
State v. Curry 398 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1965