Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dixon, 622 P.2d 501.
- Pool v. Superior Court 677 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1984
-
Pool v. Superior Court
677 P.2d 261
Ariz. 1984
4 In State v. Dixon , , 562 , , 509 (App. 1981), the court of appeals noted that "[t]he varying states of mind set forth, in paragraph 1 the intent to deprive and in paragraph 5 knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen, have a readily perceivable connection, are consistent with and not repugnant to each ot
- Sample v. Sample 663 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
-
Sample v. Sample
663 P.2d 591
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
2, § 13 of the Arizona Constitution which provides that “[ejvery Act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith____” Liberal construction is to be accorded legislation when challenged under the constitutional provision setting forth the one-subject rule, , and the title to the act may be broad in scope, thereby giving notice of a broad range of legislation.
- State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Forrester 657 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
-
State v. Forrester
657 P.2d 432
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Arndt, 87 Wash.2d 374
- State v. Encinas 647 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1982
-
State v. Encinas
647 P.2d 624
Ariz. 1982
See Counterman, supra, (where two assaults occurred as part of a continuous course of conduct during the same episode *497 giving rise to one charge of assault with a deadly weapon, the right to a unanimous jury verdict did not require the state to elect which assault it would rely on to support a conviction); , (because A.R.S.
- State v. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Bruni 630 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Bruni 630 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981