Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Francis, 371 P.2d 97.
- State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
-
State v. Miles
123 P.3d 669
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(‘We cannot find that the failure of the trial court to instruct without a request by counsel deprived appellant of a right essential to his defense nor of a fair trial.”); -23 , (“This Court has repeatedly held that if a defendant wants an instruction limiting the effect of certain evidence he must request it, and the failure of the trial court to so instruct is not error in the absence of a request therefor.”); State v. Hernandez, 7 Ariz.App.
- State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
- State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
- State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
-
State v. Correll
715 P.2d 721
Ariz. 1986
Where the identity of the defendant is an issue, “any fact which tends to establish identity has a probative value and if offered for that purpose it is receivable.” , ( , cert.
- State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
-
State v. Taylor
622 P.2d 474
Ariz. 1980
We are pointed to the language in State v. Canedo, supra, where this court, , stated that there is an “imperative duty on the trial court to clearly instruct the jury as to the limited use of the prior.”
- State v. Tamplin 613 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Tamplin 613 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
-
State v. Myers
570 P.2d 1252
Ariz. 1977
As we have previously held, "where the identity of the defendant is the question in issue, any fact which tends to establish the identity has probative value and if offered for that purpose it is receivable.”
- State v. Estrada 550 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
- State v. Estrada 550 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
- State v. Mitchell 545 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Mitchell 545 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
-
State v. McFarlin
517 P.2d 87
Ariz. 1973
It is conceded that defense counsel did not request such an instruction, , , that error could not be predicated on such an issue absent a request by counsel for such an instruction.
- State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
-
State v. Hays
496 P.2d 628
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The court in State v. Turner, supra, , , , in discussing the admissibility of other criminal acts.
- State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Wood 435 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
-
State v. Wood
435 P.2d 857
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Francis, 91 Ariz, 219, State v. Monks, 1 Ariz.App.
- Quirk v. Industrial Commission 412 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
- State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Blankenship 406 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Blankenship
406 P.2d 729
Ariz. 1965
56 A.L.R.2d 1166 ; , 141 P. 713 .
- State v. Monks 405 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
-
State v. Monks
405 P.2d 456
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
493, Rule 51; , ; , ; State v. Evans, supra.
- State v. Maxwell 391 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Maxwell 391 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1964
- State v. Francis 386 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1963
-
State v. Francis
386 P.2d 654
Ariz. 1963
we affirmed appellant’s conviction for statutory rape of a sixteen year old girl.
- State v. Chance 377 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1962
-
State v. Chance
377 P.2d 197
Ariz. 1962
we said: “ * * * [W]here a crime has been committed * * * in a peculiar or unusual manner, evidence of recent similar acts or crimes by the accused committed by the same means or in the same manner are provable to identify the accused as an inference from the similarity of method.” and furthe
- State v. Griffith 376 P.2d 134 Ariz. 1962
- State v. Griffith 376 P.2d 134 Ariz. 1962