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. McAlvain, 454 P.2d 987.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    -47 (1969) (concluding a photograph and judgment of conviction were sufficient to prove a prior conviction despite lack of expert fingerprint comparison); (concluding photographs and a “detailed description” of the offender in record of conviction were sufficient to prove the
  • State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    (failure to instruct on matter vital to rights of defendant constitutes fundamental error).
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
    There is no danger that the jury found that appellant killed the victim while attempting sexual assault based on an inaccurate definition of the word “attempt.” , , People v. Nelson, 73 Ill.App.3d 593 , 29 Ill.Dec.
  • State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Villarreal 617 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Villarreal 617 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Piper 555 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Piper 555 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1976
    Appellant’s third and final issue merits considerable discussion: should this court’s , cert.
  • State v. Wheeler 498 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Wheeler 498 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1972
    You must not draw any inference of guilt from the fact that he does not testify nor should this fact be discussed by you or enter into your deliberations in any way.” -448 , -990 (1969), cert.
  • State v. Greer 496 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Greer 496 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    We also agree with the rule stated by defendant that merely introducing admissions by silence during custodial periods for the purpose of proving guilt violates the self-incrimination privilege, , cert.
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
    is determinative of the issue.
  • State v. Hunt 471 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Hunt 471 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Gomez 466 P.2d 378 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Gomez 466 P.2d 378 Ariz. 1970
    in which no request was made for an instruction on the failure of the defendant to testify, we said: “It is our position that it is better practice for the trial judge to give the instruction only if it is requested by the defendant, but it is not reversible error if the instruction is given without r
  • State v. Suarez 461 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Suarez 461 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Williamson 456 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Williamson 456 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1969
    the same issue was squarely before this Court.