Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Villavicencio, 388 P.2d 245.

86 citing documents.

State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
Moreover, evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to “complete the story.”
State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
e stated: “The ‘complete story’ exception to the rule excluding evidence of prior bad acts holds that evidence of other criminal acts is admissible when so connected with the crime of which defendant is accused that proof of one incidentally involves the other or explains the circumstances of the crime.” Johnson, 116 Ariz. at 400 , 569 P.2d at 830 (emphasis added) ( , ).
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Price 598 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1979
State v. Price 598 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1979
Recognizing a , we said: Evidence of other criminal acts is admissible when so blended or connected with the crime of which defendant is accused that proof of one incidentally involves the other or explains the circumstances of the crime.
State v. Yee 590 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Yee 590 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
State v. Johnson 569 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1977
State v. Johnson 569 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1977
State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
There are, of course, well recognized exceptions to the rule rendering reference to other bad acts inadmissible, such as proof of motive, intent, guilty knowledge, completion of the story of a given crime, etc. State v. Collins; State v. Denny
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
State v. Madrid 552 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1976
State v. Madrid 552 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1976
State v. Noles 546 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1976
State v. Noles 546 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1976
* * * [W]e choose to refer to this as the ‘complete story’ principle, rather than ‘res gestae.’ ”
State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
State v. Allen 535 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1975
State v. Allen 535 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1975
ific acts of misconduct not amounting to a conviction for a felony, , we have held that an exception exists when: “Evidence of other criminal acts is * * * so blended or connected with the crime of which the defendant is accused that proof of one incidentally involves the other or explains the circumstances of the crime.”
State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
State v. Tostado, supra.
State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Albe, 10 Ariz.App.
State v. Evans 519 P.2d 182 Ariz. 1974
State v. Evans 519 P.2d 182 Ariz. 1974
State v. Lockner 513 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Lockner 513 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Albe, 10 Ariz.App.
State v. Byrd 509 P.2d 1034 Ariz. 1973
State v. Byrd 509 P.2d 1034 Ariz. 1973
State v. Albe, 10 Ariz.App.
State v. Hutton 509 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1973
State v. Hutton 509 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1973
* * * [W]e choose to refer to this as the ‘complete story’ principle, rather than ‘res gestae’.”
State v. Schmid 509 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1973
State v. Schmid 509 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1973
We held that there is a definite connection between the two crimes; , that evidence of the other crime was admissible.
State v. Tacon 488 P.2d 973 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tacon 488 P.2d 973 Ariz. 1971
State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
State v. King 478 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1970
State v. King 478 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1970
State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
State v. Johnson, supra; , ; State v. Barker, supra; , , cert.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by