Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Griffin, 406 P.2d 397.

37 citing documents.

State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(describing "reputation in the community for the character traits of argumentativeness, belligerence and quarrelsomeness" as admissible in self-defense case (emphasis added)).
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mendez, 27 Ariz. at 86-87 , 229 P. 1032 at 1033-34 6
State v. Lummus 950 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Lámar 698 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lámar 698 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lamar 698 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Lamar 698 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
* * *” -49 , citing 2 Wigmore, Evidence, § 228.
State v. Birdsall 568 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Birdsall 568 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
240 P. 863 (1925); , 229 P. 1032 (1924).
State v. Wallen 560 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Wallen 560 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
State v. Graham 195 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1972
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Spencer 433 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1967
State v. Spencer 433 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1967
State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
annotated 1 A.L.R.3d 1251 -1259.
State v. Martin 426 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1967
State v. Martin 426 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1967
is directly in point: “To resolve this vital issue of criminal responsibility it is necessary that the jury have the entire picture of the defendant.
State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state — , — the following facts led to the arrest, conviction, and sentencing of defendant.
State v. McGill 419 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1966
State v. McGill 419 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1966
we discussed this question.
Simpson v. Heiderich 419 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Simpson v. Heiderich 419 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
1 ; , ; See also : Reid v. Quebec Paper Sales & Transportation Co., 340 F.2d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1965) ; Johnson v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 221 Cal.App.2d 247 , 34 Cal.Rptr.
State v. Dodd 418 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1966
State v. Dodd 418 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1966
this court held that a ruling that there was a prima facie showing of voluntariness was an insufficient ruling.
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
we said: "We have held that as a predicate for the opinion of a non-expert witness as to the sanity or insanity of a person whose mental condition is in issue the witnesses must state facts, circumstances, acts, conversations and conduct of the person whose sanity is in question upon which he bases hi