DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Valenzuela, 418 P.2d 386.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Jonas 792 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Jonas 792 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Hernandez 540 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Hernandez 540 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Lewis 523 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Lewis 523 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1974
    In Skinner, supra, as to the use of prior inconsistent statements, we stated: “We therefore hold that the prior decisions of this court, , 267 P. 947 (1928); , ; and others which hold that such statements may not be used substantively are by this decision overruled.
  • 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. Skinner 515 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Skinner 515 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1973
    We therefore hold that the prior decisions of this court, , , ; and others which hold that such statements may not be used substantively are by this decision overruled.
  • State v. Nicholson 503 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Nicholson 503 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1972
  • Valenzuela v. State ex rel. Eyman 493 P.2d 918 Ariz. 1972
  • Valenzuela v. State ex rel. Eyman 493 P.2d 918 Ariz. 1972
    § 36-1002.04, which is entitled “Minors inducing minors to violate narcotic drug laws * * This Court affirmed his conviction
  • State v. Johnson 484 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Johnson 484 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Williamson 448 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Williamson 448 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Rivera 445 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Rivera 445 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1968
    the defendant, a minor, had been charged with five counts of administering a narcotic drug to a minor [A.R.S.
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    Taking the State’s proof at its fullest value, as we are required to do on appeal, , the defendant’s presence at the service station at the time of this theft is well established by an eyewitness identification.
  • State v. Garcia 433 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Garcia 433 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
    where we held that a minor could not be an accomplice of a defendant who was charged with the crime of inducing minors to violate narcotic drug laws.
  • State v. Ballez 427 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Ballez 427 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1967
    Also, taking the evidence and the inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the state, , ; , , we find that the defendant’s conviction should be affirmed.
  • State v. Griswold 422 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Griswold 422 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Patterson 419 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Patterson 419 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    In State v. Valenzuela, Ariz., filed September 28, 1966, the court stated: “It is proper to impeach a witness on the basis of a prior inconsistent statement.