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. Rood, 462 P.2d 399.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (stating that generally, evidence of burglary tools supports proof of criminal intent to commit a burglary).
  • State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (“Unexplained possession of recently stolen goods can generate an inference of the requisite felonious intent.”).
  • State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶12 “Unexplained possession of recently stolen goods can generate an inference of the requisite felonious intent.”
  • State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    (criminal intent usually proven by circumstantial evidence).
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    (“Surely entry by force or through a window or by some other surreptitious means might support [an inference of intent to steal]”).
  • State v. Bottoni 643 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Bottoni 643 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Janise 570 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Janise 570 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1977
    Since intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence, such as by a subsequent criminal act, , , 215 P. 729 (1923), the taking of another’s battery coupled with the entry is sufficient to infer the corpus delicti.
  • State v. Cabrera 560 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cabrera 560 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Taylor 544 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Taylor 544 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Talley 540 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Talley 540 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1975
    cited by the appellant as tending to support a contrary conclusion, is not on point as the defendant in that case was characterized as having “simply walk[ed] into a building through an un *270 locked door.” He had not picked up or removed any of the homeowner’s property.
  • State v. Miller 501 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Miller 501 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Dusch 497 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Dusch 497 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Hopkins 495 P.2d 440 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Hopkins 495 P.2d 440 Ariz. 1972
    nstruction of the trial court to the jury was a comment on the evidence: “You are instructed that intent to commit theft, or a felony, may be inferred from entering a building which contains things of value when the mode of entry is something more suspicious than simply walking into a building through an unlocked door.”
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Fierro 488 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Fierro 488 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
  • 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
  • State v. Salcido 469 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Salcido 469 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    as authority for the insufficiency of the evidence here.