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. Howard, 400 P.2d 332.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brewer 514 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brewer 514 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1973
    * * * Failure to instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law concerning the necessity for corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice even though not requested is reversible error, People v. Dobkin, 74 Cal.App.2d 269 , , and requires that the conviction on the second count of the information be set aside.”
  • State v. Taylor 512 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Taylor 512 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1973
    And it is argued that under the evidence the complaining witness could not be an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration
  • State v. Richardson 501 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Richardson 501 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Smallwood 438 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Smallwood 438 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    Subsequent to the McDaniel decision
  • State v. Fassler 438 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Fassler 438 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” , at pp. 341 and 343, , at pp. 333 and 335 (1965), we find the following statements: “The test of whether or not one is an accomplice is whether he could be informed against for the same crime of which the defendant is accused.
  • State v. Acosta 436 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Acosta 436 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1968
    we held that the trial court must give an instruction that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated.
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Owen 415 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Owen 415 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    Our Supreme Court has most recently, , stated that failure to instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law concerning the necessity for corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice, even though not requested, is reversible error.
  • State v. Sims 409 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sims 409 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Baker 402 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Baker 402 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1965
    The Attorney General confesses reversible error because of failure to give instructions on the law concerning testimony of an accomplice