Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hunt, 447 P.2d 896.
- State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-
Blazek v. Superior Court
869 P.2d 509
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., , , (“The privilege only extends to communications and does not apply to acts.”); United States v. McCown, 711 F.2d 1441, 1452 (9th Cir.1983) (marital privilege applies to utterances or expressions between husband and wife that are intended to be communicative and confidential).
- State v. Superior Court 821 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- State v. Superior Court 821 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
- State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
- 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
That court itself has previously held that the state is not authorized to appeal from a judgment of acquittal, , and we have recently reiterated that principle.
- Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa 618 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1980
- Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa 618 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Ross
485 P.2d 810
Ariz. 1971
824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); § 13-1598 A.R.S.; , , rehearing State v. Allen
- State v. Lenahan 471 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
-
State v. Lenahan
471 P.2d 748
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
: “Since we have affirmed the conviction * * * fhere could be no prejudice to the State and the cross-appeal is dismissed.” 8 Ariz.App.
- State v. Hall 468 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
-
State v. Hall
468 P.2d 598
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
we stressed the fact that the interrogation must be “custodial interrogation.” This means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
- State v. Olivas 458 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- State v. Olivas 458 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969