Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Berry, 419 P.2d 337.
- State v. Johnson 583 P.2d 1341 Ariz. 1978
-
State v. Johnson
583 P.2d 1341
Ariz. 1978
Appellant states that an essential element of the offense of child molestation is that the acts involved be “motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest or intent with respect to children.”
- State v. Garner 569 P.2d 1341 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Garner 569 P.2d 1341 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Jaramillo 522 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1974
-
State v. Jaramillo
522 P.2d 1079
Ariz. 1974
State v. Phillips, supra; State v. Hughes, supra
- State v. Clemons 521 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1974
-
State v. Clemons
521 P.2d 987
Ariz. 1974
For a few of the most recent cases so holding
- State v. Sanner Contracting Co. 514 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1973
-
State v. Sanner Contracting Co.
514 P.2d 443
Ariz. 1973
This common-sense rule of statutory construction has clearly been adopted by Arizona
- State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- State v. Allen 490 P.2d 10 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Allen
490 P.2d 10
Ariz. 1971
If the statute is found to be indefinite and uncertain then it is in conflict with the ‘due process’ clauses of both our Federal and State Constitutions and must be declared void.”
- State v. MacKey 489 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
-
State v. MacKey
489 P.2d 80
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
§ 13-686 unequivocally states that, “such restoration or tender is not a defense to the charge * *
- State v. Harris 481 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Harris
481 P.2d 504
Ariz. 1971
his ability “to receive just impressions of the facts relating to which he was examined.” , , , , 172 P. 662 (1918).
- State v. Parker 470 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Parker 470 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Torres 464 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Torres 464 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Stinson 461 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Stinson 461 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Hughes 456 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1969
-
State v. Hughes
456 P.2d 393
Ariz. 1969
“We recognize, rather, that it is for the jury to determine the truth of the witnesses’ story, and that it is not the function of this court to retry that issue.”
- State v. Anthony 449 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Davis 449 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Davis 449 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
-
State v. Anthony
449 P.2d 598
Ariz. 1969
where we held that an inconsistency in the testimony of a 61/2 year old child was not sufficient grounds for declaring a fatal variance, stating: “* * * that it is for the jury to determine the truth of the witnesses’ story, and that it is not the function of this court to retry that issue.
- State v. Hess 449 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- State v. Hess 449 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- State v. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
- State v. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
- State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
-
State v. Phillips
430 P.2d 139
Ariz. 1967
This contention, however, , , where we held this statute constitutional as explicitly delineating what acts are condemned.
- Hackin v. State 427 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1967
- Hackin v. State 427 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1967
- State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966