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. Villavicencio, 388 P.2d 245.

86 citing documents.

  • State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
    this court held: “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. Mahoney 475 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mahoney 475 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1970
    Such evidence does not automatically become inadmissible because it tends to reveal a separate criminal act, , at page 201, , at page 246: “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. Albe 460 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Albe 460 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    (citations omitted) Udall has criticized the use of this term as ‘meaningless and confusing.’ To help unconfound this confusion, we choose to refer to this as the ‘complete story’ principle, rather than ‘res gestae’.”
  • State v. De Santi 443 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. De Santi 443 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    and succeeding cases in the Supreme Court and in both Divisions of the Court of Appeals, establishes that even though evidence which has been received may indicate the possibility that an offense other than the one charged was committed, there is no error in receiving the evidence if it is intima
  • State v. Womack 431 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Womack 431 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Our Supreme Court has set forth an exception to the general rule in adopting the “complete story” principle in the following language: “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. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    Leading cases in this jurisdiction establishing the inapplicability of the subject exclusionary rule to evidence of other offenses which “complete the story” are: , -370 , -902 (1964)
  • State v. Schantz 427 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Schantz 427 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Skinner 422 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Skinner 422 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Baker 414 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Baker 414 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1966
  • 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. Prickett 409 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Prickett 409 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1965
    Evidence as to the conduct and actions of appellant during the period of his flight is admissible, particularly where it *350 is shown that his flight was to avoid apprehension for the original crime, , , and certainly counsel for the state can comment on it and point out its significance.
  • State v. Blankenship 406 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Blankenship 406 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1965
    A motion for new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence where such evidence is merely cumulative, State v. Villavicencio,' *65 , ; impeaching, , ; , 282 P. 930 ; contradictory, , 159 P. 59 , or would probably not have changed the verdict or findings of the court.
  • State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
    : “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. Farrell 399 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Farrell 399 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. McGilbry 392 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. McGilbry 392 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1964
    In State v. Villavicencio, 95 Ariz. *87 199, , we adopted the “compíete story” principle in holding admissible this type of closely related evidence of a simultaneous separate but connected crime.
  • State v. George 390 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. George 390 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Tynes 389 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Tynes 389 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1964