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.

  • State v. Harrison 533 P.2d 1143 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Harrison 533 P.2d 1143 Ariz. 1975
  • Farm-Aero Service Inc. v. Henning Produce Inc. 532 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Farm-Aero Service Inc. v. Henning Produce Inc. 532 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Green 532 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Green 532 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Adrian 522 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Adrian 522 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. McMurry 513 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. McMurry 513 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Scott 511 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Scott 511 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
    we specifically rejected this proposition, holding that there is no distinction in the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence.
  • State v. Mathewson 498 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Mathewson 498 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Lerma 495 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Lerma 495 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Thornton 493 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Thornton 493 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1972
  • Wood v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1972
  • Wood v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1972
    In light of our decent decision equating the weight of circumstantial and direct evidence, [ , ], we do not feel constrained to recognize that a greater burden exists- where the evidence tending to prove suicide is circumstantial in nature.
  • 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
    *393 , our Supreme Court held: “It is the opinion of this court that the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence are intrinsically similar; therefore, there is no logically sound reason for drawing a distinction as to the weight to be assigned each.
  • State v. Seelen 485 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Seelen 485 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1971
    we held that it is not necessary to give such an instruction to the jury if the jury has been properly instructed as to “reasonable doubt”: “It is.
  • State v. Lewis 484 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Lewis 484 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1971
    we held that it is not necessary to instruct the jury on the reasonable hypothesis theory of circumstantial evidence where the jury has been properly instructed, as here, on reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Drevier 483 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Drevier 483 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    it was held: “It is the opinion of this court that the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence are intrinsically similar; therefore, there is no logically sound reason for drawing a distinction as to the weight to be assigned each.
  • State v. Nichols 483 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Nichols 483 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    wherein the Arizona Supreme Court held that there is no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence and that they are intrinsically similar and that a proper instruction on “reasonable doubt” applies to all kinds of evidence, 1 That a circumstantial evidence instruction is no longer n
  • State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Loggins 479 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Loggins 479 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    in a well-reasoned opinion authored by Justice Hays, who by chance happens to be the trial judge in this case, the court expressly overruled that portion of State v. Reynolds, supra, which held that the giving of such an instruction was error.
  • Larson v. MacIas 479 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Larson v. MacIas 479 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Salinas 479 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Salinas 479 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1971
    However, , this court held that it is not necessary to instruct the jury on the reasonable hypothesis theory of circumstantial evidence where the jury has been properly instructed on reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Perez 478 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Perez 478 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1970
    However, , *490 we repealed that rule, and the instruction is no longer proper.
  • State v. Jensen 477 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Jensen 477 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1970