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. Moreno, 374 P.2d 872.

70 citing documents.

  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
    as imposing a judicially crafted “usable quantity” element on the possession offense, while no such element exists for the transportation for sale offense.
  • State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    in support of his argument that it was error to refuse his requested instruction.
  • State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Barrow v. Arizona Board of Regents 761 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Barrow v. Arizona Board of Regents 761 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    Barrow also notes that in order for the state to obtain a criminal conviction for possession of a narcotic drug when the amount of the drug involved is so small that a chemical test is necessary for its presence to be detected, the state must show that “the quantity is sufficient if usable under the known practices of narcotic addicts.”
  • State v. Ybarra 751 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Ybarra 751 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Jackson 677 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Jackson 677 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    In support of his contention, , wherein the supreme court held: [w]here the amount of a narcotic is so small as to require a chemical analysis to detect its presence, the quantity is sufficient if usable under the known practices of narcotic addicts.
  • State v. Jackson 677 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Jackson 677 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    In support of his contention, , wherein the supreme court held: [w]here the amount of a narcotic is so small as to require a chemical analysis to detect its presence, the quantity is sufficient if usable under the known practices of narcotic addicts.
  • State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State ex rel. Hyder v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State ex rel. Hyder v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Leftridge v. State 573 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Leftridge v. State 573 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    and it follows that a like amount must exist to support a vehicle forfeiture.
  • State v. Donovan 568 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Donovan 568 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    At trial, the criminalist characterized the substance as “very good cocaine” and stated that it was “definitely a usable quantity.” Appellant argues, however, that no evidence was submitted pertaining to usability under “the known practices of narcotics addicts”
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Villavicencio 502 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Villavicencio 502 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1972
  • 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
    the court held that there is a useable quantity of the drug if it is useable under the known practices of narcotics addicts.
  • State v. Washington 496 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Washington 496 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. McGuire 493 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. McGuire 493 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    the rule in Arizona has been: “[W]here the amount of a narcotic is so small as to require a chemical analysis to detect its presence, the quantity is sufficient if useable under the known practice of narcotic addicts.
  • State v. Laurino 492 P.2d 1189 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Laurino 492 P.2d 1189 Ariz. 1972
    State v. Rios Payan, 15 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Siirila 193 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Anderson 489 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Anderson 489 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    * * * > ” (Emphasis in original)
  • State v. Rios Payan 486 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Rios Payan 486 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    where our Supreme Court held: “We believe the correct rule to be applied under a statute such as ours is that where the amount of a narcotic is so small as to require a chemical analysis to detect its presence, the quantity is sufficient if useable under the known practices of narcotic addicts.
  • State v. Martinez 485 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Martinez 485 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    State v. Urias, 8 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Resnick 177 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1970