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. Jackson, 420 P.2d 270.

39 citing documents.

  • State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (explaining a wrongful taking of property without apparent intent to return it or explanatory circumstances indicates intent to permanently deprive).
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Moreover, Arizona courts have held that “[t]he wrongful taking of another’s property without an apparent purpose to return it and without [satisfactory] explanation evidences an intent to permanently deprive.” (citation omitted); (“The trial judge, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, not only could have disregarded appellant’s testimony, but also could have inferred from its unsatisfactory nature, that there was no apparent intent to return the automobile.”) (collecting cases).
  • State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    (intent to permanently deprive can be inferred from unexplained or unsatisfactory explanation of taking property without consent).
  • State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Bouillon 540 P.2d 1219 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Bouillon 540 P.2d 1219 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Flowers 521 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Flowers 521 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Garcia 484 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Brookshire 480 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Brookshire 480 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Humphrey 464 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Humphrey 464 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Ruiz 463 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Ruiz 463 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. McMurtry 458 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. McMurtry 458 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    State v. Valencia, 2 Ariz.App 301, , , : “It is also almost universally recognized that proof of possession by an accused, of recently stolen property, warrants an inference that he was the taker.”
  • State v. Miller 452 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Miller 452 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Fassler 446 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Fassler 446 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Sturgeon 445 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Sturgeon 445 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Wood 435 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Wood 435 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
    we said: “It is also almost universally recognized that proof of possession by an accused, of recently, stolen property, warrants an inference that he was the taker.
  • 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
  • State v. Pederson 424 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Pederson 424 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1967
    In People v. Alexander, 78 Cal.App.2d 954 , , at page 815, the court said: “While such possession would not, standing alone, suffice to determine the possessor’s guilt, yet as evidence, its quality is of such high degree that only slight corroborative proof of other inculpatory circumstances would warrant a conviction.” See also, , .
  • State v. Villegas 420 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Villegas 420 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1966