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. Harvill, 476 P.2d 841.

147 citing documents.

  • Lohse v. Faultner 860 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Lohse v. Faultner 860 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Andrews v. Fry’s Food Stores, , see also, Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 137-38 , 75 S.Ct.
  • Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona 770 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Andrews v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona 770 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    2689 , 86 L.Ed.2d 706 (1985)
  • Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Farm-Aero Service, Inc. v. Henning Produce, Inc., 23 Ariz.App.
  • McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    the Arizona Supreme Court thoroughly discussed and overruled its prior opinions regarding the weight to be accorded circumstantial evidence, and held that the probative value of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence were intrinsically similar, and that even though the burden of proof in the
  • Rawlings v. Apodaca 726 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Rawlings v. Apodaca 726 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    239, 242 , , had rejected the rule relied on in McNeely that where a conviction in a criminal case is based upon a chain of inferences, each and every link in the chain must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
    If anything, the instruction was advantageous to defendant, , , vacated on other grounds, , and he could not have been prejudiced by it.
  • State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    d an attempt to commit a crime as “the performance of an act immediately and directly tending to the commission of the crime with the intent to commit such crime, the consummation of which fails on account of some intervening cause.” This former statute involved two elements: “(1) an intent to commit the crime, and (2) some step or overt act towards the commission of the crime.”
  • Facit-Addo, Inc. v. Davis Financial Corp. 653 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Facit-Addo, Inc. v. Davis Financial Corp. 653 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
  • State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
    When, a defendant makes a motion for acquittal, he raises a question of the sufficiency of the evidence, , , but not of its competency.
  • State v. Clovis 618 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Clovis 618 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Dale 590 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Dale 590 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1979
    State v. Vann, 11 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Carter 578 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Carter 578 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Wilson 584 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Wilson 584 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Olivas 579 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Olivas 579 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    State v. Bullock, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Tucker 574 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Tucker 574 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    idence is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant’s guilt, and the other to his innocence, it is your duty to adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant’s innocence and reject the other which points to his guilt.”
  • State v. Wallen 560 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Wallen 560 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    State v. Vitale, 23 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Bellamy 542 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Bellamy 542 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Turrubiates 542 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Turrubiates 542 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    of acquittal on the ground that he could not be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence unless that evidence was “not only consistent with guilt, but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence,”
  • State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    has clearly rejected the former Arizona rule that proof of other bad acts by circumstantial evidence must be inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
  • Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church 537 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church 537 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975