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. Locks, 397 P.2d 949.

43 citing documents.

  • In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
  • In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
    2294, 2298-99 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 227-28 (1972); -51
  • State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1981
  • State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1981
    The crime and the elements constituting it must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose in advance what course it is lawful for him to pursue (citations omitted).” -51
  • State v. Navarrette 566 P.2d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Navarrette 566 P.2d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Hagen 558 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Hagen 558 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Baker v. State 494 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Baker v. State 494 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    the court held: “The law must be definite and certain so that the same standard of conduct may be applied by all persons affected.
  • Yetman v. Naumann 492 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Yetman v. Naumann 492 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    We agree with respondent that the dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to conjecture, , but statutes are not automatically invalidated because there is difficulty in determining whether certain marginal offenses fall within their language.
  • NGC Theatre Corporation v. Mummert 489 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1971
  • NGC Theatre Corporation v. Mummert 489 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1971
    Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra.”
  • State v. Starsky 475 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Starsky 475 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1970
    this court held: “The law must be definite and certain so that the same standard of conduct may be applied by all persons affected.
  • Barbone v. Superior Court of Pima County 462 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Barbone v. Superior Court of Pima County 462 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    The petitioners argue, however, , wherein the court struck down, on the grounds of vagueness, the predecessor counterpart of A.R.S.
  • Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    State v. Bowling, 5 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Jones 446 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Jones 446 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    It is appellant’s contention that the words “unnatural manner” , (1964.
  • State v. Smith 446 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Smith 446 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1968
    Defendant cites the Arizona Supreme Court, , in which the standard for determining the vagueness or certainty of the criminal statute is set forth as follows: “ * * * The crime and the elements constituting it must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose in advance what course it is lawful for him to pursu
  • Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    Although the dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to conjecture, , statutes are not automatically invalidated as vague simply because there is difficulty in determining whether certain marginal offenses fall within their language.
  • State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    2d 609 (1942), for a case holding a similar statute unconstitutionally vague, , and State v. Bowling, 5 Ariz.App.
  • Hackin v. State 427 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1967
  • Hackin v. State 427 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Bowling 427 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Bowling 427 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    the Supreme Court of this state struck down as unconstitutionally vague a statute making it a misdemeanor to publish an “obscene or indecent picture.” In this decision our Supreme Court said: “The law must be definite and certain so that the same standard of conduct may be applied by all persons
  • City of Phoenix v. Fine 420 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • City of Phoenix v. Fine 420 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    293 F.2d 449 (1961) ; , A Book, Etc. v. Attorney General of Commonwealth of Mass., 383 U.S. 413 , 86 S.Ct.
  • State v. Berry 419 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Berry 419 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1966
    1 *313 , , where the court held that § 13-532 prohibiting the production or possession of obscene items was too indefinite and uncertain to permit a conviction under its terms to stand.
  • State v. Miller 413 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Miller 413 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Cota 408 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Cota 408 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965