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. Acosta, 416 P.2d 560.

69 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
  • State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
    (“The general context of the argument surrounding the statements complained of was not to allude to defendant’s failure to testify, but rather to bring home the point that the evidence was, at least in the view of counsel for the state, uncontroverted, and justified a verdict of guilt.”).
  • State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Printz 609 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Printz 609 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Dale 590 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Dale 590 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Carter 601 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Carter 601 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Still 582 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Still 582 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Cannon 576 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Cannon 576 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1978
    State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    State v. Thornton, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Lee 559 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Lee 559 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
    this court adopted the following test to resolve the issue of which comments by the prosecution are objectionable: “ '* * * It is only objectionable to comment on the failure of defendant personally to testify; a comment that certain facts brought out by the prosecution are uncontradicted is not
  • State v. Decello 550 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Decello 550 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1976
    State v. White, 16 Ariz.App.
  • State v. White 549 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. White 549 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    : “ '* * * It is only objectionable to comment on the failure of defendant personally to testify; a comment that certain facts brought out by the prosecution are uncontradicted is not objectionable.
  • State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Tostado 523 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Tostado 523 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Adrian 522 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Adrian 522 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
    This court, on review of the lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion for directed verdict, must view the facts most strongly in favor of upholding the verdict of the jury.” at 130 , at 563 (1966).
  • State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. McGuire 493 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. McGuire 493 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    In reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict, we must view the evidence most strongly in favor of upholding the jury verdict, , and will reverse only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion of guilt, State v. Mercer, 13 Ariz.App.
  • State v. White 492 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. White 492 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965)) and Arizona law ( , ; State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Stevens 490 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Stevens 490 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Milton 489 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Milton 489 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    “It is necessary, therefore, for us to expressly overrule the many decisions of this court which have held that it is fundamental error for the trial court to fail to instruct on the probative force of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution must rely exclusively thereon for a conviction.” A motion for a directed verdict challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence, , the trial court is under no duty to direct a verdict of acquittal if there is substantial evidence that a defendant committ
  • State v. Matus 486 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971