Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Locks, 372 P.2d 724.

32 citing documents.

State v. Hardesty 214 P.3d 1004 Ariz. 2009
State v. Hardesty 214 P.3d 1004 Ariz. 2009
Union Trust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169, 177 (1940) (noting that “[t]he highest state court is the final authority on state law”); -96, (observing that “the construction of state laws is the exclusive responsibility of the state courts”).
State v. Tovar 627 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Tovar 627 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Stewart 573 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Stewart 573 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Yabe 559 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Yabe 559 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Section 13-532 specifically requires proof of scienter in criminal obscenity prosecutions by defining the crime in the terms of “knowing publication or sale.” Furthermore, a scienter requirement was judicially read into the statutory predecessor of § 13-532 , which held that scienter was a requisite element of a criminal prosecution for sale of obscene materials and that “knowingly” meant “[Kjnowledge of the obscene nature of the materials involved.” Id.
In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
State v. Lewis 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
State v. Lewis 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
“Where differing constructions of a statute are possible, it is our duty to construe it in such a manner that it will be constitutional, State v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc., , ” See also: , ; , ; State Bd.
State v. Also 463 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Also 463 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
147 P. 738 , L.R.A.1915F, 519 (1915)
Barbone v. Superior Court of Pima County 462 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Barbone v. Superior Court of Pima County 462 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Scofield, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In evaluating constitutionality: “It is our duty to uphold an act if, on any reasonable theory, a construction may be given thereto which would make it constitutional.”
State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In the area of freedom of expression
Application of Gault 407 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1965
Application of Gault 407 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1965
State v. Locks 397 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1964
State v. Locks 397 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1964
State v. Krug 393 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1964
State v. Krug 393 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1964
should readily dispose of appellant’s assertion that a criminal statute which fails to specifically set forth intent or scienter as an element of the offense is invalid.We hold that although A.R.S.
State v. Hernandez 391 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1964
State v. Hernandez 391 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1964
State v. Locks 382 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1963
State v. Locks 382 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1963