Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Green, 439 P.2d 483.

37 citing documents.

State ex rel. Berger v. Justice Court of Northeast Phoenix Precinct 536 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1975
State ex rel. Berger v. Justice Court of Northeast Phoenix Precinct 536 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1975
State v. Seymour, 21 Ariz.App.
State v. Seymour 517 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Seymour 517 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
it was held that the defendant has a right to examine a statement made to police by the victim of a crime when it concerns events about which the victim testifies at trial.
State v. Byrd 509 P.2d 1034 Ariz. 1973
State v. Byrd 509 P.2d 1034 Ariz. 1973
State v. Fassler 503 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1972
State v. Rendel 501 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Rendel 501 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Preciado 486 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Preciado 486 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Neither can an appellate court make assumptions as to how an effective use of the narrative report would have affected the witness’ credibility in the eyes of the jury.” See also:
State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
State v. Duncan 466 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1970
State v. Duncan 466 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1970
State v. Johns 460 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1969
State v. Johns 460 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1969
State v. Beers, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Navallez 457 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Navallez 457 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Curtis 455 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Curtis 455 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
however, the court held that the jury and not the judge decide what inferences are to be drawn from the evidence.
State v. Ortiz 449 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Ortiz 449 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
our Supreme Court had before it a case where the defendant contended that the verdict of guilty against him was based solely upon circumstantial evidence and was not inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1968
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1968
State v. Grijalva 445 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Grijalva 445 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
It is the function of the jury to decide what reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence
State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Johnson 441 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Johnson 441 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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. Dixon 440 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Dixon 440 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968