DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sheldon, 369 P.2d 917.

46 citing documents.

  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
    The purpose of the corroboration requirement is to ensure that there is “some evidence in the case which is legally sufficient to lend credibility to the statements of the accomplice.”
  • State v. Hickey 561 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Hickey 561 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Warren 548 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Warren 548 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    the law in Arizona has long been that evidence, to be sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, must tend, in some degree, to connect the defendant with the offense charged.
  • State v. Grange 543 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Grange 543 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
    tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, ‘[i]n the last analysis .
  • State v. Richardson 501 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Richardson 501 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Colson 499 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Colson 499 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
    “In the last analysis * * * the facts of each case must govern.” at p. 79 , at p. 922 (1962).
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
    The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” , in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence necessary for corroboration pursuant to A.R.S.
  • State v. Canada 481 P.2d 859 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Canada 481 P.2d 859 Ariz. 1971
    We have held that such evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , , and may be circumstantial, , .
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
    tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, ‘[i]n the last analysis * * * the facts of each case must govern.’ State v. Sheldon, supra, 91 Ariz. at p. 79
  • State v. Oliver 452 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Oliver 452 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, “[i]n the last analysis.
  • State v. Fredrico 449 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Fredrico 449 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1969
    we said: “Whether a witness is an accomplice of the accused is generally determined by asking if the witness could be informed against for the same offense with which the accused is charged.
  • State v. Wilson 439 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Wilson 439 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, ‘[i]n the last analysis * * * the facts of each case must govern.’ State v. Sheldon, supra, 91 Ariz. at p. 79
  • State v. Smallwood 438 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Smallwood 438 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, ‘[i]n the last analysis * * * the facts of each case must govern.’ State v. Sheldon, supra, 91 Ariz. at p. 79
  • State v. Springer 428 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Springer 428 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1967
    tends to implicate the defendant is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony, , ; that the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, , ; that the evidence need not directly connect the defendant with the offense but need only tend to do so, , ; that the necessary corroboration may be established by circumstantial evidence, , ; and that, “[i]n the last analysis * * * the facts of each case must govern.” State v. Sheldon, supra, 91 Ariz. at p. 79
  • State v. Valenzuela 418 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Valenzuela 418 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    1 , in which Vice Chief Justice Udall discusses the history of the law leading to the enactment of this statute.
  • State v. Howard 400 P.2d 332 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Howard 400 P.2d 332 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Goldthorpe 395 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Goldthorpe 395 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Smith 395 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Smith 395 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Michaels 390 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Michaels 390 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1964
    The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” , , and from that case we take the following quotation: “The statute’s * * * primary requirement is that there be some evidence -in the case which is legally sufficient to lend credibility to the statements of the accomplice.
  • State v. Forsythe 381 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Forsythe 381 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1963
    The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” The source of this statute, its requirements, and the manner in which the statute is to be construed were .recently passed upon by this Court, sitting en banc, , .