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. Jung, 506 P.2d 648.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Meriwether Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Meriwether Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    provision [at issue] functions as an exception, it is not an element of the offense that the state must prove.”); (holding the prosecution is “not required to negative statutory exceptions — such exception is a matter of defense where it is not an ingredient of the offense”) ().
  • State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    A defendant “who relies upon *201 an exception to a criminal statute made by a proviso or distinct clause has the burden of establishing and showing that she comes within the exception.” In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT9065297, , (citing cases); , (“[T]he state is not required to [prove] negative statutory exceptions — such exception is a matter of defense where it is not an ingredient of the offense.”); accord Hammonds, 192 Ariz. at 532, ¶ 12, 968 P.2d at 605 (noting, in d
  • State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    However, a person’s “mere presence at a location where narcotics are found is insufficient to establish knowledgeable pos *28 session or dominion and control over narcotics.”
  • Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223, 1235 (9th Cir.1980); , (“[T]he state is not required to [prove] negative statutory exceptions—such exception is a matter of defense where it is not an ingredient of the offense.”).
  • State v. Berryman 875 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Berryman 875 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    State v. Quandt, 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Sterling 713 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Sterling 713 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    the state contends that A.R.S.
  • State v. Morgan 583 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Morgan 583 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Chagnon 564 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Chagnon 564 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Turning next to appellants’ assertions, while we think the challenged affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient to support the magistrate’s finding of probable cause, see, , State v. Castro, 13 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Gaitan 558 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Gaitan 558 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Cruz 550 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Cruz 550 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Boniface 546 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Boniface 546 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Rubino 531 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Rubino 531 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    Aguilar v. Texas, supra; Spinelli v. United States, supra.