DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hughes, 426 P.2d 386.

86 citing documents.

  • State v. Jacobs 503 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. Jacobs 503 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Biddlecome 481 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Biddlecome 481 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    State v. Hernandez, 7 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Hughes 477 P.2d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Hughes 477 P.2d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    The conviction was overturned, , and defendant was tried for a second time.
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Hughes 475 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Hughes 475 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    The conviction was reversed
  • State v. Mercer 473 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Mercer 473 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Mendoza 472 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mendoza 472 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Hall 468 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Hall 468 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    prohibits the admission of this evidence and also the evidence relating to prior sales of stolen hubcaps by Way and Verdugo to the defendant.
  • State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
    He acknowledges that the testimony was offered and admitted for the purpose of proving a “scheme, plan, intent, *470 and knowledge.” In support of his position that “other incidents” must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that they constitute a crime, , .
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Hughes 446 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hughes 446 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    See, e. g., , , , , , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
  • State v. Wright 436 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1968
  • Overruled State v. Wright 436 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    1 , , are four decisions subsequent to Dutton which impel us to the view that under the standards established by our Supreme Court rev
  • 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
    ircumstantial, “was susceptible of a multitude of inferences, equally as reasonable as the one drawn by the trier of fact.” Whether the weighing of reasonable inferences is for the jury, ( , 225 P. 332 (1924); , ); or for the appellate court, ( , , ), we do not find that there is art inference of innocence equally as reasonable as the inference of the defendant’s guilt drawn by the jury below.
  • State v. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    And our Supreme Court has stated: “ * * * evidence of other crimes is competent when it tends to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity and common scheme or plan.” , , filed 6 April 1967.