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. Tigue, 386 P.2d 402.

72 citing documents.

  • State v. Tucker 574 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Tucker 574 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Turrubiates 542 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Turrubiates 542 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    ontends that by providing alternative theories, he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal on the ground that he could not be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence unless that evidence was “not only consistent with guilt, but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence,”
  • State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
    Cipres v. United States, 343 F.2d 95 (9th Cir. 1965); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct.
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Love 474 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Love 474 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mendoza 472 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mendoza 472 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Verrue 471 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Verrue 471 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    The premise for the defendant’s argument is that the State’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, , required the giving of such instruction.
  • State v. Riley 470 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Riley 470 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • 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. Paruszewski 466 P.2d 787 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Paruszewski 466 P.2d 787 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    Counsel for the State appears to concede that the gravamen of the crime here was circumstantially based and that the usual role in such a , is that the court must, on its own initiative, if necessary, see that the circumstantial instruction is given.
  • State v. Bloom 464 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Bloom 464 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Navallez 457 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Navallez 457 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Moore 456 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Moore 456 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1969
    The prosecution of this case does not rely solely upon circumstantial evidence, , .
  • State v. Collins 454 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Collins 454 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Miller 452 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Miller 452 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Reynolds 449 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Reynolds 449 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    The Arizona Supreme Court has stated: “ * * * , , 655: “ ‘The weight of authority is that the court on its own motion is under a duty to give proper instructions as to the effect of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution must rely exclusively on circumstantial evidence to convict.’ ” (Emphasis supplied)
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    .” (Emphasis supplied) 99 Ariz. at 3 , 405 P.2d at 886 .
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    We have consistently held in the past that because of the dangers that lurk in a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence an instruction must be given to the jury that ‘the evidence must not only be consistent with guilt but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence/ , ; , .
  • State v. Green 439 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Green 439 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1968
    We have consistently held in the past that because of the dangers that lurk in a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence an instruction must be given to the jury that “the evidence must not only be consistent with guilt but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” , ; , .
  • 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. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
    The prosecution of this case does not rely solely upon circumstantial evidence, , .
  • State v. Woody 435 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • 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
  • State v. Woody 435 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967