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. Wayman, 449 P.2d 296.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    State v. Chears, 231 Kan.
  • State v. Herrera 638 P.2d 702 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Herrera 638 P.2d 702 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Herrera 638 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Herrera 638 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Mathews 633 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Mathews 633 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Thus the rule that penal statutes are to be strictly construed, , is only one of several factors to be utilized in determining legislative intent, and such factor must be considered with the various other rules of statutory construction.
  • State v. Williams 589 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Williams 589 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Gates 576 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Gates 576 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Bateman 547 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Bateman 547 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
    Lovelace v. Clark, supra; , , , 148 P.2d.
  • State v. Gates 546 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Gates 546 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court 545 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1976
  • State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court 545 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1976
    For this reason we upheld the trial court’s refusal to allow questions in an indecent exposure prosecution directed at the complaining witness’ prior adulterous relationship or divorce because “[tjhese assertions have no relevancy to the complaining witness’ truth or veracity, nor do they have any reasonable connection with the issues before the jury.”
  • Nunez v. Superior Court 503 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Nunez v. Superior Court 503 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    State v. Phelps, 12 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Buggs 501 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Thompson 501 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Thompson 501 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Buggs 501 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1972
  • Sacks v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Sacks v. Industrial Commission 474 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    City of Phoenix, supra, at , , referring to Article 18, Section 8, Constitution of Arizona, A.R.S.
  • State v. Phelps 467 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Phelps 467 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    and: “ * * * Courts administering the criminal law cannot apply sanctions for violation of the mandate of an agency * * * unless that agency’s authority is clear and has been conferred in accordance with law.” Go jack v. United States, 384 U.S. 702 , 86 S.Ct.
  • 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
    Flight, of course, is admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, , , 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 276 (3d ed. 1940), but is insufficient in itself to sustain a conviction.