Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Boodry, 394 P.2d 196.

39 citing documents.

State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
See United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir.1979); , , , , cert.
State v. Bauer 704 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Bauer 704 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
937 , 15 L.Ed.2d 848 (1966); , cert.
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Arce, supra; State v. Mitchell, supra.
State v. Lopez 484 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1971
State v. Lopez 484 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1971
State v. Stielow 484 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Stielow 484 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
a single act constituted two separate offenses.
State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
6 , (contributing to delinquency of minor, permitting life and helth (sic)’of child to be neglected and failure to provide) , (rape and incest) , (possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale) , (two counts of obtaining money by false pretenses) “The' latest consideration of this question is contained in
State v. Forgan 455 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1969
State v. Forgan 455 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1969
in which the Court held that the county attorney properly refused to stipulate to that defendant talcing a polygraph test.
State v. Evans 454 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1969
State v. Evans 454 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1969
*437 , ; , reversed on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct.
State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Ballez 427 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1967
State v. Ballez 427 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1967
296 , 4 L.Ed.2d 241 , , in interpreting the above statute that where a defendant has received two concurrent sentences on two counts in the same trial, based on a single, definite act, the remedy is to retain the convictions and to remove the lesser sentence.
State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
: "* * * Defendant took the stand in his own defense.
State v. Hunt 406 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. Hunt 406 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
defendant was convicted of both rape and incest as the result of one act of sexual intercourse with his five-year-old daughter.
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
However, , this Court permitted a defendant, convicted of rape and incest to present for the first time on appeal the proposition that under A.R.S.