DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hernandez, 391 P.2d 586.

61 citing documents.

  • State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    State v. Petralia, supra
  • State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. MacK 654 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    the court stated, , : “ ‘ * * * a crucial element of the defense of entrapment is that the intent to commit the crime must not arise in the mind of the accused.
  • State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Forgan 505 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Forgan 505 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    2 , error was predicated upon the prosecutor’s questions which indicated that defendant had previously committed a felony, the selling of marijuana to a third party.
  • State v. Sellers 475 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Sellers 475 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Martin 474 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Martin 474 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
    We have emphasized that a crucial element of the defense of entrapment is that the intent to commit the crime must not arise in the mind of the accused, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the intent originated with the accused, , .” 467 P.2d at 742 .
  • State v. Boccelli 467 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Boccelli 467 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
    We have emphasized that a crucial element of the defense of entrapment is that the intent to commit the crime must not arise in the mind of the accused, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the intent originated with the accused, , .
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Dillon 448 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Dillon 448 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. White 426 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. White 426 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Duplain 425 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Duplain 425 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Rabon 414 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Rabon 414 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
    Moreover, , : “ * * * a crucial element of the defense of entrapment is that the intent to commit the.
  • State v. Hays 414 P.2d 745 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Hays 414 P.2d 745 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Ballesteros 413 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Ballesteros 413 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1966
    However, , , that no predicate for an appeal exists where there has been a failure to request a mistrial.
  • State v. Thurston 413 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Thurston 413 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1966
    P.2d 586 (1964), we stated that: “the defense of entrapment does not arise where one is ready to commit the offense given but the opportunity * * Where state officers did not induce the defendant to commit the crime but merely offered to buy marijuana, which the defendant was ready to sell, the state officers did
  • State v. Bradley 409 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Bradley 409 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Mendez 406 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Mendez 406 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    The trial court must be given the opportunity to correct asserted errors before an appellate court will listen to a plea that an injustice has been perpetrated.”
  • State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Chavez 403 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Chavez 403 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1965
    “ , , we stated: ‘ * * * the defense of entrapment does not arise where one is ready to commit the offense given but the opportunity, Bloch v. United States, 9 Cir., 226 F.2d 185 ; Cline v. United States, 9 Cir., 9 F.2d 621 .’ 96 Ariz. at 31 , 391 P.2d at 587 .
  • State v. Saenz 403 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Saenz 403 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
    *186 , we said “ * * * a crucial element of the defense of entrapment is that the intent to commit the crime must not arise in the mind of the accused.
  • State v. Gortarez 402 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Gortarez 402 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1965
    we stated: *167 “ * * * the defense of entrapment does not arise where one is ready to commit the offense given but the opportunity, Bloch v. United States, 9 Cir., 226 F.2d 185 ; Cline v. United States, 9 Cir., 9 F.2d 621 .” 96 Ariz. at 31, 391 P.2d at 587 .
  • State v. Armenta 402 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1965