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. Sims, 409 P.2d 17.

64 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
  • State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
    ding evidence sufficient for a lesser- included offense instruction where the “facts were such that the jury could reasonably believe portions of the [witness’s] story and portions of the defendant’s story”); (allowing an instruction for a lesser-included offense where the jury may weigh contradictory testimonies and believe parts of each); (“These asserted contradictions and discrepancies are of such a nature as can and usually do occur in the course of most trials where much of the evidence is
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Although mere presence at the scene of a robbery is not sufficient for a jury to find one person aided in its commission, (), a reasonable jury could conclude Mendez was not “merely present,” but rather had the intent to assist Garcia in robbing the victim.
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
    Such a result is not supported by the statute’s common-law underpinnings as an “accessory after the fact” crime, one which was “a distinct, independent offense.” , , 21 (1965); A.R.S.
  • State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
    22 (1965) (quoting People v. Shilitano, 218 N.Y.
  • State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Miller 755 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Miller 755 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    -09 , , 21-22 (1966) cert.
  • State v. Hickle 650 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Hickle 650 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1982
    In the absence of an abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision on recanted testimony will not be disturbed on appeal.” , cert.
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
    Those experienced in the administration of the criminal law know well its untrustworthy character.” , cert.
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
    Although a defendant’s presence at the time and place of the crime in the absence of preconcert does not establish guilt as an aider, abettor or principal, , , cert.
  • State v. Hunt 577 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Hunt 577 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Green 570 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Green 570 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1977
    It has been held that in the absence of preconcert, mere presence of a person does not make him an aider and abettor, , , cert.
  • State v. Hill 545 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Hill 545 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Hernandez 540 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Hernandez 540 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1975
    While in the absence of preconcert the mere presence of a person at the time and place of a crime does not make him an aider, abettor or principal, P.2d 17 (1966), under all the circumstances of the case the jury could believe that it was highly unlikely that Corona was an ignorant person accidentally present while the criminal offense was being committed.
  • State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
    § 13-MO, he was tried as an aider and abettor and, as such, his mere presence at the scene of the crime does not make him an aider, abettor or principal, , , as authority for this proposition.
  • State v. Irwin 479 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Irwin 479 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1971
    citing the much-quoted opinion in People v. Shilitano, 218 N.Y.
  • State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
    1790 , 23 L.Ed.2d 248 ; , ; , , cert.
  • State v. Blevins 476 P.2d 860 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Blevins 476 P.2d 860 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
    1790 , 23 L.Ed.2d 248 ; , , , cert.
  • State v. Propp 455 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Propp 455 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1969
    we quoted with approval the following language from the landmark decision of People v. Shilitano, 218 N.Y.
  • Rodriquez v. Williams 451 P.2d 609 Ariz. 1969
  • Rodriquez v. Williams 451 P.2d 609 Ariz. 1969
    : “Our order directing the superior court to determine the supplementary motion for a new trial was a remand for a limited purpose and reinstated the jurisdiction in the superior court to take the necessary and appropriate action.” In a civil case, the situation is somewhat different.
  • State v. Sims 449 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Sims 449 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Churton 448 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Churton 448 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Owens 447 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Owens 447 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Fassler 446 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Fassler 446 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1968
    we held: “ * * * ‘we have repeatedly held that the test to determine whether a witness is an accomplice is whether the witness could be informed against for *515 the same crime which the defendant stands accused.’ 306 , .
  • In Re Cutshaw 432 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • In Re Cutshaw 432 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967