Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Baca, 425 P.2d 108.

34 citing documents.

State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-47 (1969) (concluding a photograph and judgment of conviction were sufficient to prove a prior conviction despite lack of expert fingerprint comparison); (concluding photographs and a “detailed description” of the offender in record of conviction were sufficient to prove the defendant was the same person convicted of a prior felony).
State v. Martens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 37 (1999) (certified copies of a California disposition of arrest); (certified copies of a plea agreement signed by the defendant and docket sheets indicating the agreement was filed in court); Nash, 143 Ariz. at 403 (certified commitment records from other states); (certified records of commitment); ¶ 14 (App. 2016) (certified minute entries); Robles, 213 Ariz. at 273, ¶ 17 (certified copies of DOC documents); Cons, 208 Ariz. at 415, ¶ 17 (certified copies of convictions).
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
is not sufficient evidence”); , (name, detailed description, and prison photographs sufficient proof of prior felony); , (matching name, date of birth, and signature sufficient evidence of prior conviction); , 94 P.3d
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
143 Ariz. at 403, 694 P.2d at 233; (certified prison records which contained an accompanying fingerprint card adequate proof of prior convictions).
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
the prosecution introduced a certified copy of defendant’s New Mexico Prison records.
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1984
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1984
It is well established that a party must state distinctly the grounds for a challenge to the admissibility of evidence, , , and that we therefore consider the objective record, not the subjective intentions of one or more of the parties.
State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983
State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983
State v. Stough 669 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Stough 669 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Smith 610 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
State v. Smith 610 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
§ 13-454(E)(1) provides that an aggravating circumstance to be considered is whether “[t]he defendant has been convicted of another offense in the United States for which under Arizona law a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable.” , , we said: “It is settled in this jurisdiction that the constitution, statutes, and reported court decisions of our sister states are a proper subject for judicial notice and need not be proved by the party acting in reliance on them.” We judicially no
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
State v. Galvan 495 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1972
State v. Galvan 495 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1972
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967