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. Holliday, 375 P.2d 370.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Urias 553 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Urias 553 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Baker 547 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Baker 547 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    We think there was substantial evidence that appellant *259 committed the crimes with which he was charged, P.2d 370 (1962), and the trial court did not err in denying his motions for directed verdict and new trial.
  • State v. Adrian 522 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Adrian 522 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
    If at the close of the evidence for the state or at the close of all the evidence the court is of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction, it may, and on the motion of the defendant shall, direct the jury to acquit the defendant.” *428 In State v. Holliday, this court held that said rule questions the sufficiency, not the competency of the evidence, , at page 171, , at page 372, where this court said: “There is no merit in the assignments of error based on the trial
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    “A I don’t recall.” The defendant contends that the prosecuting attorney’s cross-examination constituted improper comment on defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent, , , upon his detention at the scene, Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jones 429 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Jones 429 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Mendibles 428 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Mendibles 428 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    The defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict, because the evidence, which was largely circumstantial, “was susceptible of a multitude of inferences, equally as reasonable as the one drawn by the trier of fact.” Whether the weighing of reasonable inferences is for the jury, ( , 225 P. 332 (1924); , ); or for the appellate court, ( , , ), we do not find that there is art inference of innocence equally as reasonable as the inference of the defendant’s guilt drawn by the jury
  • State v. Acosta 416 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Acosta 416 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Turner 416 P.2d 409 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Turner 416 P.2d 409 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Cravin 395 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Cravin 395 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964