Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dessureault, 453 P.2d 951.

382 citing documents.

  • State v. Moran 504 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Moran 504 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Alexander 503 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Alexander 503 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1972
    On the morning of August 25, 1970, just prior to Alexander’s trial, the Superior Court judge held a , , supplemented , cert.
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Carrillo 502 P.2d 1343 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Carrillo 502 P.2d 1343 Ariz. 1972
    1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); , cert.
  • 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. Nevarez 499 P.2d 709 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Nevarez 499 P.2d 709 Ariz. 1972
    were complied with and the court denied the motion to suppress the in-court identification.
  • State v. Gering 498 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Gering 498 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1972
    1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411, 1972 , and of this court
  • State Ex Rel. Flournoy v. Wren 498 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1972
  • State Ex Rel. Flournoy v. Wren 498 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
    We said in State v. Dessureault, 104- Ariz. 380, that “we are not, however, prepared at this time to extend the application of Wade and Gilbert to pre-indictment or pre-information situations * * 104 Ariz. at 382 , 453 P.2d at 953 .
  • State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
    and the Arizona cases, , , , , , reh.
  • State v. Scott 495 P.2d 133 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Scott 495 P.2d 133 Ariz. 1972
    it had no jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s motion.
  • State v. Brady 493 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Brady 493 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    He does not suggest to this Court that a mistake was made in the identification or that he was in fact not guilty of the crime as charged, he merely contends that the “stringent guidelines” , cert.
  • State v. Ponce 492 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Ponce 492 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1972
    Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, § 24, A.R.S.; Rule 163, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; , , State v. Bernal, 13 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Nunez 492 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Nunez 492 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1972
    we followed the opinion in Wade, saying that “[w]e are not, however, prepared at this time to extend the application of Wade and Gilbert to preindictment or pre-information situations.
  • State v. Chudy 492 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Chudy 492 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Lockett 491 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Lockett 491 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. DeLuna 490 P.2d 8 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. DeLuna 490 P.2d 8 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Washington 489 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Washington 489 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1971
    we held that United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Milton 489 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Milton 489 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution must rely exclusively thereon for a conviction.” A motion for a directed verdict challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence, , the trial court is under no duty to direct a verdict of acquittal if there is substantial evidence that a defendant committed the offense charged, , ; and the highest court of this State has held that the probative values of direct and circumstantial evidence are intrinsically similar.
  • State v. Lang 489 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Lang 489 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Salinas 479 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Salinas 479 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. McGuire 479 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. McGuire 479 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    If the arrest is for a misdemeanor, the arrest shall be made immediately or on fresh pursuit.” , , : “ * * * The existence of probable cause is determined by application of an objective rather than a subjective standard.
  • State v. Wilson 477 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Wilson 477 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1970