Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bearden, 405 P.2d 885.
- State v. Jones 429 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
- State v. Mendibles 428 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
-
State v. Mendibles
428 P.2d 127
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Our task is to determine whether there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict ( , ); and, thus, whether the jury was justified in concluding that the defendant, Mendibles, was that person.
- State v. Alkhowarizmi 421 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Alkhowarizmi
421 P.2d 871
Ariz. 1966
is innocence: “In order to sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proven by the state must not only be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, but also must be inconsistent with any hypothesis or theory which would establish or tend to establish his innocence.” Because this Court has adhered to the above principle consistently, see, , ; , ; State v. *516 Cox, , , the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
- State v. Turner 416 P.2d 409 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Turner 416 P.2d 409 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Thompson 415 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Thompson 415 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Baker 414 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Baker
414 P.2d 153
Ariz. 1966
Hence, defendant could not have been prejudiced when the trial court reread the instruction and quoted from a decision of this court— , , .
- State v. Sims 409 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Sims 409 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
- State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965