Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Intogna, 419 P.2d 59.

54 citing documents.

Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
State v. Narten, supra; State v. Schantz, supra.
State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
: “In State v. Schantz, supra, we restated the insanity test, under which expert evidence is admissible, as follows: “ ‘This test of legal insanity has two elements.
State v. Parker 558 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1976
State v. Parker 558 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1976
State v. Duke, supra, at 325, 518 P.2d at 575
State v. Duke 518 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1974
State v. Duke 518 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1974
State v. Moore 506 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
State v. Moore 506 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
However, as the use of a deadly weapon is in itself sufficient evidence for the jury to find malice, , , , appeal after remand, , we cannot say that the jury finding of malice was without reasonable justification.
State v. Durham 495 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1972
State v. Durham 495 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1972
A search and seizure of evidence relating to a crime at the time of an arrest is lawful
State v. Melcher 487 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Melcher 487 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Reynolds, 11 Ariz.App.
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
*443 at 277 , at 61 (1966), we stated that the question of malice is one for the jury, and that the use of a deadly weapon is sufficient evidence for the jury to find express malice.
State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
*443 at 277 , at 61 (1966), we stated that the question of malice is one for the jury, and that the use of a deadly weapon is sufficient evidence for the jury to find express malice.
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hickson 450 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hickson 450 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1969
As to the first question raised by appellant, at 277 , at 61 (1966), we said: “Malice aforethought may be expressed or implied.
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1969
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1969
State v. Terrell 445 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1968
State v. Intogna 445 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1968
State v. Terrell 445 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1968
See State v. Intogna (1966), , .
State v. Intogna 445 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1968
State v. Superior Court 442 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1968
State v. Superior Court 442 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1968
Rule 142, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; , ; , .
State v. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
State v. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
which, like the instant case, was governed by Escobedo, supra, an officer who was only a block away arrived on the scene shortly after the shooting.
State v. Reynolds 436 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Reynolds 436 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
and State v. Tellez, supra.
State v. Saunders 435 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1967
State v. Saunders 435 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1967
we held that a police officer who questioned an individual with his pistol drawn had certainly deprived that individual of his “freedom of action”.
State v. Spencer 433 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
State v. Spencer 433 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
State v. Tellez 431 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Tellez 431 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Powell, 5 Ariz.App.
State v. Anderson 428 P.2d 672 Ariz. 1967
State v. Anderson 428 P.2d 672 Ariz. 1967
State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 ; , .