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. Altman, 482 P.2d 460.

35 citing documents.

  • Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    DISCUSSION ¶ 13 The purpose of the preliminary *82 hearing 3 is not to conduct a trial on the merits, but to “determine whether a public offense has been committed and whether there is sufficient cause to believe that the accused committed it.”
  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
    e state can establish the mental state by simply demonstrating “the transfer of any amount [of drugs] when the accompanying circumstances indicate an intent to sell.” Id.; (no usable quantity requirement for sale); (same); State v. Espinosa, 101 Ariz. 474, 476, (same).
  • State v. Romero 659 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Romero 659 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Canedo 608 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Canedo 608 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1980
    Appellee, citing, inter alia, , would have us hold that the instructions ultimately given sufficiently illustrated the point which appellant was seeking to stress.
  • State v. Schreiber 566 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Schreiber 566 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1977
    Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 15.1
  • State v. Moncayo 564 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Moncayo 564 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1977
    1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)
  • State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Williams 545 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Williams 545 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1976
  • Ulin v. Riddel 532 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Hunter 523 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Hunter 523 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
    482 P.2d *135 460, the court said: “[i]n the instant case, there is no allegation that the prosecution suppressed evidence favorable to the defendant; therefore, the failure of the trial court to grant Appellant’s motion was not reversible error.” 482 P.2d at 464 .
  • State v. Salcido 509 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Salcido 509 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fassler 503 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
  • Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    our Supreme Court, with regard to a preliminary hearing, quoted with approval from a Nevada case as follows: “ ‘Its purpose is to determine whether a public offense has been committed and whether there is sufficient cause to believe that the accused committed it.
  • State v. Belcher 496 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Belcher 496 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1972
    the same situation arose, and we held that the question was “not improper,” and that since it was not answered it could not have been prejudicial.