Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. George, 390 P.2d 899.

67 citing documents.

State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
(although element of “intent” omitted from instruction on aiding and abetting, no reversible error found where instructions, read as a whole, indicated that guilt could not be found absent the requisite intent).
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
63 n. 1, , 597 n. 1 (1963); , Arizona Water Co. v. City of Yuma, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
State v. George, supra [ , ]; State v. Evans, supra [ , ].” We find the contention of the defendant that there was prejudicial error unfounded.
State v. Pina 469 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Pina 469 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Darby 460 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1969
State v. Darby 460 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1969
State v. Brown 456 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1969
State v. Brown 456 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1969
State v. George, supra [ , ]; State v. Evans, supra [ , ].” 103 Ariz. at p. 383 , 442 P.2d at p. 546 .
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hannon 451 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hannon 451 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1969
State v. Ortiz 449 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Ortiz 449 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Avila 449 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1969
State v. Avila 449 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1969
State v. Roderick 448 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Roderick 448 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Carr 445 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Carr 445 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Carroll v. State, supra.
State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Green 436 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1968
State v. Green 436 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1968
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
The evidence, stated favorably to upholding the verdicts rendered below, , indicates the defendant and his wife were guests in the home of the alleged victim on the evening before the alleged burglary.
State v. Clark 434 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1967
State v. Clark 434 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Leading cases in this jurisdiction establishing the inapplicability of the subject exclusionary rule to evidence of other offenses which “complete the story” are: , -370 , -902 (1964)
State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Although the instructions must be read as a whole, , State v. Douglas, 2 Ariz.App.
State v. Thompson 415 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1966
State v. Thompson 415 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1966
State v. Baker 414 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1966
State v. Baker 414 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1966
Rules 281, 282, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Sims 409 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1965

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by