Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cano, 436 P.2d 586.

44 citing documents.

State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
State v. Bishop 781 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1989
State v. Bishop 781 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1989
(1968) (expert testimony is merely evidence the trier of fact considers and weighs).
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 776 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1989
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 776 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1989
(expert testimony is merely evidence the trier of fact considers and weighs).
State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
In re the Appeal in Pinal County, Juvenile Action No. J-677 657 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
In re the Appeal in Pinal County, Juvenile Action No. J-677 657 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
State v. Parker, supra, 558 P.2d at 907
State v. Parker 558 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1976
State v. Parker 558 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1976
State v. Allen 557 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Allen 557 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
The court, in rejecting this contention, , : “ * * * Expert-opinion testimony is merely evidence to be considered by the jury, together with all the facts and circumstances in the case.
State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
The state, in support of the jury’s verdict on the question of insanity
State v. Loyd 212 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1973
State v. Lopez 482 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1971
State v. Lopez 482 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1971
we affirmed the conviction of Frank Cano but reversed and remanded as to defendant, Armando Lopez.
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
we said: “ * * * Expert-opinion testimony is merely evidence to be considered by the jury, together with all the facts and circumstances of the case.
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Councilman 460 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1969
State v. Councilman 460 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1969
State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
we held: “Defendant Cano contends most strenuously that where expert testimony of insanity has been presented—as in the instant case—then the state has a duty to present positive expert testimony of legal sanity in order to sustain its burden of proof.
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968