Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Reyes, 408 P.2d 400.

70 citing documents.

State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
United States v. Christopher, 488 F.2d 849 (9th Cir.1973)
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
See, , (by implication); , (by implication).
State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1981
State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1981
State v. Blodgette 590 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1979
State v. Blodgette 590 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1979
this Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to grant a continuance overnight *395 because appellant did not show that the witness could be found or that she would testify on his behalf.
State v. Lopez 587 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1978
State v. Lopez 587 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1978
State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
State v. Ahumada 542 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Ahumada 542 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
This situation, of course, P.2d 400 (1965) where there was no showing that the absent witness could even be found, , cert.
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
Thus, in State v. Boccelli, supra, we stated: “Entrapment is a question for the jury unless there is no evidence to support the defense, , , or unless uncontradicted testimony makes it patently clear that an otherwise innocent person had been induced to commit the acts.
State v. Mendoza 511 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1973
State v. Mendoza 511 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1973
Entrapment is a question of fact, , State v. Boccelli, supra, and we have held that in order for there to be a showing of entrapment “there has to exist activity by the State in the nature of an inducement to commit a crime which the accused would not have otherwise committed, * * * providing the mere opportunity to commit the off
State v. Chudy 492 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1972
State v. Chudy 492 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1972
See State v. Boccelli, supra
State v. Lockett 491 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1971
State v. Lockett 491 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tacon 488 P.2d 973 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tacon 488 P.2d 973 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tosatto 485 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tosatto 485 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1971
408 R.2d 400 (1965); 3 Wigmore.
State v. Johnson 479 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1971
State v. Johnson 479 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1971
(“It has long been the rule that a witness may not be impeached by specific acts of misconduct not amounting to conviction for a felony.”) ; at 261 , at 402.
State v. Price 477 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1970
State v. Price 477 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1970
14 A.L.R.3d 1262 ; State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Harris, supra.
State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
We have held in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict that it must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the state and all reasonable inferences must be resolved against the defendant, , ; , , 14 A.L.R.3d 1262 , and that it is only in the absence of probative facts to support the verdict that reversal is justified.
State v. Bunow 476 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1970
State v. Bunow 476 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1970
State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
State v. Martin 474 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
State v. Martin 474 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
State v. Boccelli, supra
State v. Boccelli 467 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
State v. Boccelli 467 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
Entrapment is a question for the jury unless there is no evidence to support the defense, , , or unless uncontradicted testimony makes it patently clear that an otherwise innocent person has been induced to commit the acts.
State v. Walls 456 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Walls 456 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Likewise, in Arizona, , , 14 A.L.R.3d 1262 (1965), defendant was cross-examined at a time when only a verdict of guilty was entered, and sentence had not yet been imposed.
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. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
14 A.L.R.3d 1262 (1965); , and see Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence §§ 66 and 68, at 99 and 107 (1960).
State v. Pennye 449 P.2d 611 Ariz. 1969
State v. Pennye 449 P.2d 611 Ariz. 1969