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. Akins, 383 P.2d 180.

52 citing documents.

  • State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
    must be in those aspects where normally there could be expected to be found differences.” , -83 (1963)
  • State v. Roper 682 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Roper 682 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    68, 71 , -267 , -183 (1963).
  • State v. Martinez 622 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Martinez 622 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Miller 624 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Miller 624 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    must be in those aspects where normally there could be expected to be found differences.” , ( , -83 (1963)).
  • State v. Jackson 603 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jackson 603 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1979
    1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975)
  • State v. Tipton 581 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Tipton 581 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1978
    In order for two crimes to be classified as a common plan or scheme it is not necessary for the crimes to have been perpetrated in an absolutely identical manner, , so long as the court perceives a visual connection between the two crimes.
  • State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    State v. Moore, supra at 217, 495 P.2d at 447 ; , , 285 P. 274 (1930); Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 115 (1960).
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Evidence is not admissible except as it may show a tendency or likelihood of a plan common to all offenses to commit the crime.” 267 , 183 (1963)
  • State v. Dale 544 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Dale 544 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    : “Similarities between the offenses .
  • State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
    601 (1968), , ; , ; 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law § 251 at 539.” 14 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Miniefield 522 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Miniefield 522 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
    Evidence is not admissible except as it may show a tendency or likelihood of a plan common to all offenses to commit the crime, (citation omitted)” 267 , 183 (1963).
  • In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    601 (1968), , , ; 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law § 251 at 539.
  • State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
    As stated in Hughes, supra: “* * * the law is * * * well settled that evidence of other crimes is competent when it tends to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity and common scheme or plan.” , ; , ; , [ , ]
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Goldsmith 450 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Goldsmith 450 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1969
    See State v. Akins [ ] [June 27, 1963], The state here recalled the witness Moore in rebuttal and the evidence was solely for the purpose of impeaching defendant’s prior testimony.
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • 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
    However, the well-established exception to this rule is: “ * * * evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charged when it tends to establish motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, identity, a scheme or plan common to the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other.”
  • State v. Hughes 426 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hughes 426 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Hanna 409 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Hanna 409 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Garcia 393 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Garcia 393 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1964
    86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ; , ; , , cert, denied 339 U.S. 973 , 70 S.Ct.