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. Villegas, 420 P.2d 940.

31 citing documents.

  • State v. Sotelo-Nava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Sotelo-Nava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    the reservation of a ruling on a motion for directed verdict made at the close of the State’s case is reversible error[,]” Sotelo-Nava cannot establish prejudice.
  • 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. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. James 857 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. James 857 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
    While we agree that the length of time a defendant has known his companions is something to be considered when determining accomplice liability, , in the instant case it does not appear that such evidence would be of sufficient weight to affect the outcome of the trial.
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tucker 548 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Tucker 548 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    Comment to Rule 20 (1973), and as effective prior to August 1, 1975; , ; Jackson v. United States, 250 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1958); Cephus v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C.
  • State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
    “The presence of one at the commission of a felony by another is evidence to be considered in determining whether or not he was guilty of aiding and abetting; and it has also been held that presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.” , citing for the quoted proposition People v. Moore, 120 Cal.App.2d 303, at p. 306 , at p. 1013 .
  • State v. Holmes 465 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Holmes 465 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Sheffield 451 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Sheffield 451 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
    State v. Gordon, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Jones 429 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Jones 429 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967