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. Clark, 434 P.2d 636.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Miller 600 P.2d 1123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Miller 600 P.2d 1123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Porter 595 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Porter 595 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1979
    State v. Smith, 12 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Goff 542 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Goff 542 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    our Supreme Court had to determine if a statement made by a defendant was made inadmissible because of his intoxicated condition.
  • State v. Humphrey 531 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Humphrey 531 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Godinez 531 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Godinez 531 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1975
    We set forth the following test for cases where a , : “The general rule with respect to confessions made by a person under the influence of intoxicants can be summarized as follows: proof that the accused was intoxicated at the time he confessed his guilt will not, without more, prevent the admissability of his confession [citing cases] ....
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
    State v. Smith, 12 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Clark 517 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Clark 517 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1974
    We stated the general rule concerning confessions made voluntarily by a
  • State v. Mooney 477 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Mooney 477 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Smith 469 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Smith 469 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    A. No sir.” , the Arizona Supreme Court said: “The general rule with respect to confessions made by a person under the influence of intoxicants can be summarized as follows: proof that the accused was intoxicated at the time he confessed his guilt will not, without more, prevent the admissibility of his confes
  • State v. Brady 469 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Brady 469 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1970
    *596 , this Court summarized the general rule with respect to confessions and admissions made by a person voluntarily under the influence of intoxicants.
  • State v. Thompson 458 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Thompson 458 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    : “The general rule with respect to confessions made by a person under the influence of intoxicants can be summarized as follows: proof that the accused was intoxicated at the time he confessed his guilt will not, without more, prevent the admissibility of his confession.