Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ballesteros, 413 P.2d 739.

58 citing documents.

State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
(holding that a “usable quantity” is not required for sale offenses).
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
We first address the issue of whether the counts of sale and transfer of cocaine require proof they involved a “useable amount.” Our supreme court has consistently rejected any argument that a conviction for sale or transfer of narcotic drugs requires proof that the drug involved was of a sufficient quantity to be a “useable amount.” , and the holding has been reaffirmed in subsequent cases.
State v. Apodaca 801 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Apodaca 801 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Arriola, supra.
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Valencia 575 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Valencia 575 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Sanchez 542 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Sanchez 542 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
: “But where the crime charged is the sale of a narcotic drug, the required intent is established by the transfer of any amount when the accompanying circumstances indicate an intent to sell.” (emphasis added) 100 Ariz. at 265 , 413 P.2d at 741 .
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Hunter 539 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1975
State v. Hunter 539 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1975
State v. Thompson 516 P.2d 42 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thompson 516 P.2d 42 Ariz. 1973
State v. Washington 496 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Washington 496 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
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. 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. Maggard 455 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1969
State v. Maggard 455 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1969
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
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 , .
State v. Urias 446 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Urias 446 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Nutter v. Bechtel 433 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Nutter v. Bechtel 433 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967