Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tigue, 386 P.2d 402.

72 citing documents.

State v. Springer 428 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1967
State v. Springer 428 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1967
State v. Valenzuela 425 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Valenzuela 425 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Alkhowarizmi 421 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1966
State v. Alkhowarizmi 421 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1966
ion on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proven by the state must not only be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, but also must be inconsistent with any hypothesis or theory which would establish or tend to establish his innocence.” Because this Court has adhered to the above principle consistently, see, , ; , ; State v. *516 Cox, , , the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
State v. Maynard 418 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1966
State v. Maynard 418 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1966
We said, , , 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 tb convict.” (Emphasis in original.)
State v. Bradley 409 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1965
State v. Bradley 409 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1965
State v. Bearden 405 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1965
State v. Lopez 405 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1965
State v. Bearden 405 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1965
State v. Lopez 405 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1965
State v. Robinson, 74 N.J.Super.
State v. Monks 405 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Monks 405 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
However, to sustain a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that the evidence so offered should not only be consistent with guilt, but must exclude every, reasonable hypothesis of innocence
State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
State v. Robinson, 74 N.J.Super.
State v. Farmer 400 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1965
State v. Farmer 400 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1965
State v. Kananen 399 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1965
State v. Kananen 399 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1965
State v. Robinson, 74 N.J.Super.