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. Bearden, 405 P.2d 885.

165 citing documents.

  • State v. Spillman 468 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Spillman 468 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1970
    § 13-139, reads partially as follows: “All persons concerned in the commission of a crime whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, * * * are principals in any crime so committed.” We have previously held, , that: “(a)iding and abetting means simply to assist in the commission of an act, either by active participation in it or in
  • State v. Johns 460 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Johns 460 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1969
    State v. Beers, 8 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Olivas 458 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Olivas 458 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    Appellant’s last contention is that the trial judge wrongfully refused to instruct the jury in the language of unofficial headnote number 2 , which reads, in requested part, as follows: “ ‘Aiding and abetting,’ under statute providing that all persons aiding and abetting in commission of crime are principals in the crime, means simply that the aider or -abettor must assist in the commission of an act constituting offense, either by ac
  • State v. Crow 457 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Crow 457 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1969
    we held: “We are only concerned with whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict.
  • State v. Parra 456 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Parra 456 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Little 455 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Little 455 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1969
    : “We are only concerned with whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict * * * Reversible error occurs where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion * * *483 There is sufficient evidence in the instant case to support the jury’s finding of guilty.
  • State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Collins 454 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Collins 454 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1969
    where we said: “It is true that to warrant a conviction based solely upon circumstantial evidence, the evidence must not only be consistent with guilt, but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
  • State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
    14 A.L.R.3d 1262 ; , .” 103 Ariz. at 382 , 442 P.2d at 545 .
  • State v. Hannon 451 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Hannon 451 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1969
    The test for determining whether evidence introduced at trial is competent to support the conclusions of a , : “We are only concerned with whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict.
  • State v. Ortiz 449 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Ortiz 449 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Avila 449 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Davis 449 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Davis 449 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
    passing on the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict, we held: “Evidence is not insubstantial simply because the testimony is conflicting or reasonable persons may draw different conclusions therefrom.
  • State v. Enriquez 448 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Enriquez 448 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Carr 445 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Carr 445 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Sturgeon 445 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Sturgeon 445 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Love 444 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Love 444 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    State v. Norgard, 6 ArizApp.
  • State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    A , : “ * * * to warrant a conviction based solely upon circumstantial evidence, the evidence must not only be consistent with guilt, but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    We have consistently held in the past that because of the dangers that lurk in a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence an instruction must be given to the jury that ‘the evidence must not only be consistent with guilt but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence/ , ; , .
  • State v. Dixon 440 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Dixon 440 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Green 439 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Green 439 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1968
    We have consistently held in the past that because of the dangers that lurk in a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence an instruction must be given to the jury that “the evidence must not only be consistent with guilt but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” , ; , .
  • State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Jones 429 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967