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. Garcia, 433 P.2d 18.

33 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Ricky Alonzo Hippensteel Ariz. 2026
    (stating that when the court submits forms of verdict to the jury, “it should give a form of every kind of a verdict that may possibly be returned by the jury”).
  • Whitestone v. Jade Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Whitestone v. Jade Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “Failure to give a requested verdict form is not reversible error unless the omission was prejudicial to the moving party.” -62, ¶ 13 (App. 2006) ().
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (-54 (1973), -71 (1967), ).
  • Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    433 P.2d *62 18, 21 (1967).
  • Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    See, -54 , -74 (1973); -71 , -21 (1967); -68 , -64 (Ct.App.1977).
  • State v. Schackart 737 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Schackart 737 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    We believe the information that the jurors had known the victim in school was such “as to indicate only a remote or speculative influence on the juror____” (Emphasis in original) -471 , -21 (1967).
  • State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1983
    208 P. 412, 415-16 (1922).
  • State v. Gray 595 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Gray 595 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1979
    State v. Shields, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Ortiz 571 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Ortiz 571 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Wynn 562 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Wynn 562 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Turning to the facts and reviewing them in a light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, , they reveal that on the evening of June 24, 1975 a police officer was on routine patrol in Flagstaff, Arizona, at approximately 11:40 p. m. when he saw appellant’s automobile lights turn on and appellant’s car hurriedly leave its parked position on a dirt cul-de-sac next to a fenced lumber yard.
  • State v. Wilson 555 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Wilson 555 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Smith 552 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Smith 552 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Williams 545 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Williams 545 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1976
    The facts viewed to support the verdict, , are as follows: On August 17, 1974 at sunset the prosecutrix was abducted at knifepoint by the appellant.
  • State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Roderick 448 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Roderick 448 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Rodgers 442 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Rodgers 442 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1968