Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Espinosa, 421 P.2d 322.

50 citing documents.

State v. Cowled Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cowled Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(finding no constitutional violation when the defendant made no attempt to find or subpoena the witness); (finding no constitutional violation when the defendant “never invoked the powers of the court to compel” witness testimony).
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
ly demonstrating “the transfer of any amount [of drugs] when the accompanying circumstances indicate an intent to sell.” Id.; (no usable quantity requirement for sale); (same); State v. Espinosa, 101 Ariz. 474, 476, (same).
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Pike 650 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Pike 650 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
State v. Reed 583 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Reed 583 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
American Estate Life Insurance v. State 568 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
American Estate Life Insurance v. State 568 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
: The purpose of the constitutional provision is to prevent the surprise and evils of omnibus bills and surreptitious legislation by requiring the title of an act to generally inform the public of the act’s contents.
McKellar v. Arizona State Department of Corrections 566 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1977
McKellar v. Arizona State Department of Corrections 566 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1977
State v. Deddens 542 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1975
State v. Deddens 542 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1975
State v. Smith, 13 Ariz.App.
State v. Stadie 540 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1975
State v. Stadie 540 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1975
‘As long as the punishment is approximately proportionate to the type of crime and not so severe as to shock the moral sense of the community, its extent is necessarily within the discretion of the legislature.’ , ” State v. Espinosa, 101 *
State v. Guthrie 532 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1975
State v. Guthrie 532 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1975
this court upheld A.R.S.
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
State v. Parle 521 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1974
State v. Parle 521 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1974
we stated “[a]s long as the punishment is approximately proportionate to the type of crime and not so severe as to shock the moral sense of the community, its extent is necessarily within the discretion of the legislature.”
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
To sustain a conviction for possession of narcotics the State must prove that there was a usable amount of narcotics, , it was held that to sustain a conviction for sale of narcotics, proof of a usable amount of narcotics is not required.
State v. Enriquez 514 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1973
State v. Enriquez 514 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1973
§ 36-1002.02 and that he possessed the requisite criminal intent at the time the offer was made.” -477 , -325 (1966).
Johnson v. Arizona Public Service Co. 498 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
In Re Dos Cabezas Power District 498 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
In Re Dos Cabezas Power District 498 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Johnson v. Arizona Public Service Co. 498 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Jacobson 490 P.2d 433 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Jacobson 490 P.2d 433 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Our Supreme Court in passing upon the severity of sentences prescribed by the legislature, stated: “We note that the sale and use of narcotics has an extremely deleterious effect on individuals and upon society in general.”
State v. Altman 482 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1971
State v. Altman 482 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1971
Although it is not necessary to establish a usable quantity in order to convict a defendant of unlawful sale of narcotic drugs, , we do not believe it was reversible error for the judge in the instant case to permit the introduction of such evidence.
State v. Pennye 449 P.2d 611 Ariz. 1969
State v. Pennye 449 P.2d 611 Ariz. 1969
Shaw v. State 447 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Shaw v. State 447 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Rivera v. Superior Court 430 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Rivera v. Superior Court 430 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967