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. Seymour, 421 P.2d 517.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    ¶4 The trial court thought otherwise, however, stating that it needed to set a bench trial on the prior conviction allegation “because [the state] still need[ed] to prove some additional elements for use of the prior for enhancement purposes.” But, in State v. Seymour, 101 Ariz. 498, 500, our supreme court observed that a defendant’s admission during trial “is surely the strongest evidence available to prove a prior conviction .
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
    (accused’s admission while testifying may sufficiently establish the prior conviction); , (defendant’s admission on the stand of a prior conviction was sufficient proof of it); , (defendant’s admission on cross-examination of prior convictions is inherently reliable).
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
    that a former conviction may be sufficiently established by the accused’s admission while testifying in court.
  • State v. Gilbert 581 P.2d 229 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Gilbert 581 P.2d 229 Ariz. 1978
    State v. McMurry, 20 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. McMurry 513 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. McMurry 513 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “.
  • State v. Thomas 510 P.2d 45 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Thomas 510 P.2d 45 Ariz. 1973
    we held that an *401 admission of a prior conviction elicited during cross-examination of the defendant was conclusive on the issue of prior conviction and no further hearing was necessary.
  • State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
    The pointing of a loaded gun in a threatening manner within striking distance of another party has been held to support a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, , ; , 125 P. 702 .
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Crawford 475 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Hughes 456 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Hughes 456 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Fields 455 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Fields 455 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1969
    However, , where we said: “We have held with reference to A.R.S.
  • State v. Frand 445 P.2d 553 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Frand 445 P.2d 553 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    State v. Armstrong, supra.
  • State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    After the jury returned the verdict the Superior Court, , directed a verdict as to the allegation of prior conviction, the defendant having admitted the prior conviction when he took the stand on his own behalf at the trial of the case.