Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cravin, 395 P.2d 706.

38 citing documents.

State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Zaragosa, 6 Ariz.App.
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State v. Batt, 24 Ariz.App.
State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Zaragosa, 6 Ariz.App.
State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
Defendant claims that it was error not to instruct the jury that the crime of theft “requires a specific felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.” It is true that “intent to permanently deprive the owner of his possession is an essential ingredient of grand theft”, , , and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if reasonably supported by the evidence.
State v. Stefanik 478 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1970
State v. Stefanik 478 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1970
State v. Abbey 474 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Abbey 474 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Bradley, 3 Ariz.App.
State v. Fenton 472 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Fenton 472 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Scott 452 P.2d 699 Ariz. 1969
State v. Scott 452 P.2d 699 Ariz. 1969
State v. Enriquez 448 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1968
State v. Enriquez 448 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1968
State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
in which a defendant’s motion to quash was not made until approximately eight months after arraignment, we faced the same issue and held that a motion to quash must be raised at the arraignment or within such time as the trial court may fix, citing Rule 79 and Rule 166 of the Rules of Criminal P
State v. Abbott 442 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1968
State v. Abbott 442 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1968
State v. Ganster 433 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1967
State v. Ganster 433 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1967
State v. Bradley 433 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1967
State v. Bradley 433 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1967
State v. Chambers 414 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1966
State v. Chambers 414 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1966
State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
State v. Westbrook 406 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1965
State v. Westbrook 406 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1965
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. Essman 403 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1965
State v. Essman 403 P.2d 540 Ariz. 1965
we refused to consider the contention that the defendant was denied due process because he was denied an opportunity to cross examine a police witness at the preliminary examination, which had been raised by a motion to quash the information.