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. Quinones 465 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Quinones 465 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1970
    P.2d 18 (1968), where the amount of narcotics involved is so small as to not be within the realm of an uninformed layman’s knowledge of usability, there must be evidence presented by the State as to its usability and also an instruction to the jury as to the nec
  • State v. Kelley 454 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Kelley 454 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    Trial § 104, the authors state the general rule and that in Arizona: “A motion to reopen a case for the purpose of introducing further evidence in the cause is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.”
  • 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
    We hold that only in those cases where the amount is incapable of being put to any effective use will the evidence be insuf *321 ficient to support a conviction.”
  • State v. Superior Court in and for Co. of Maricopa 441 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Superior Court in and for Co. of Maricopa 441 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1968
    we said that our Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., do not authorize a motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict.
  • State v. Ballesteros 413 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Ballesteros 413 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1966
    where this Court dealt with the question as to what amount of narcotic drug would be sufficient as evidence to sustain a conviction for the unlawful possession of narcotic drug.
  • State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Cota 408 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Cota 408 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1965
    we held that a motion to reopen is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
  • State v. Arroyo 406 P.2d 734 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Arroyo 406 P.2d 734 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Favors 375 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Favors 375 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1962
    State v. Moreno, 92 Ariz. —, .