Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Vann, 463 P.2d 75.

43 citing documents.

State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“What the defendant does or fails to do and what he says may be evidence of what is going on in his mind.”); see also State v. Mleziva, 1 CA-CR 18-0813, 2019 WL 5618086 at *2, 3, ¶¶ 11, 15 (Ariz. App. Oct.
State v. Derrico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Derrico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(stating that what a “defendant does or fails to do and what he says may be evidence” of intent).
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(“What the defendant does or fails to do and what he says may be evidence of what is going on in his mind.”); (jury may infer state of mind from defendant’s behavior at or near time of offense).
State v. Wolter 3 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wolter 3 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Womack 847 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1983
State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 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
although a “gift” of twenty dollars was requested from the victim by the defendant it was evident from the surrounding circumstances that a robbery was being attempted.
State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Madsen 609 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1980
State v. Madsen 609 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1980
State v. Dale 590 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1979
State v. Dale 590 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1979
State v. Dorame 588 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Dorame 588 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
is illustrative: “It is the position of the defendant that his mere request for money did not indicate an intent to rob, nor did the placing of his hand in his pocket constitute an overt act.
State v. Pittman 574 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1978
State v. Pittman 574 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1978
State v. Schlenker 549 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Schlenker 549 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
State v. Diaz 514 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1973
State v. Diaz 514 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1973
State v. Kountz 501 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
State v. Kountz 501 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1972
The weight to be given to such a circumstance, the significance, if any, to be attached to it, are matters for the Jury to determine.” This instruction was specifically : , and is not error when, as under the facts of this case, it is supported by the evidence.
State v. Godsoe 489 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
State v. Godsoe 489 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
State v. Murphy 482 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1971
State v. Murphy 482 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1971
Rules 310 and 311, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
53 A.L.R.2d 619 (1954); , .
State v. Verrue 471 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Explained State v. Verrue 471 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
we explained what is meant by commenting on the evidence.