Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sherrick, 402 P.2d 1.

48 citing documents.

State v. Roberson 225 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Followed State v. Roberson 225 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, n.4, n.4 (2004) (“The courts of this state are bound by the decisions of [the Arizona Supreme Court] and do not have the authority to modify or disregard [its] rulings.”); (state courts bound by decisions of United States Supreme Court interpreting federal Constitution).
State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Jensen 531 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1975
State v. Jensen 531 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1975
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
364 , 185 A.2d 1 (1962); to aid the jury in fixing the punishment, , to illustrate or explain testimony, People v. Dugger, 179 Cal.App.2d 714 , 4 Cal.Rptr.
State v. Matlock 507 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1973
State v. Matlock 507 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1973
State v. Ford 499 P.2d 699 Ariz. 1972
State v. Ford 499 P.2d 699 Ariz. 1972
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
-238 , -95 (1967); -317 , -406 (1965), reversed on other grounds, , -60 , cert.
State v. Anderson 489 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Anderson 489 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
[Citation omitted.]’ ” , cert.
State v. Williams 485 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
State v. Williams 485 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
State v. Kendall 481 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
State v. Kendall 481 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
State v. Verrue 475 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1970
State v. Sherrick 467 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1970
State v. Sherrick 467 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1970
The conviction was affirmed, , .
State v. Sherron 463 P.2d 533 Ariz. 1970
State v. Sherron 463 P.2d 533 Ariz. 1970
that clear and positive testimony of an officer showing unequivocal words of consent, was sufficient proof despite a direct conflict between his testimony and that of the appellant.
State v. James 459 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. James 459 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Parra 456 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1969
State v. Parra 456 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Watling 453 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Watling 453 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
we held that the information furnished the magistrate need not be wholly in the affidavit, but may be partly in the affidavit and partly by sworn testimony.
State v. Allen 450 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Allen 450 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
State v. Copley, supra; , , rehearing , ; , , cert.
State v. Powell 423 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Powell 423 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Cited also to the contrary effect, holding that an affirmative request for counsel is required
State v. Singh 419 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Singh 419 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
We have recently held that the failure to comply with Rule 153 does not in and of itself disqualify one whose name is not so endorsed from being called as a witness, (citations omitted) This is a matter lying within the sound discretion of the trial court.”