Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hunt, 406 P.2d 208.

58 citing documents.

In Re Tiffany O. 174 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Tiffany O. 174 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(holding that the exclusionary rule “applies to oral evidence adduced from an officer’s testimony as to what he saw or found pursuant to an illegal search”).
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lawrence 663 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lawrence 663 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. McGann 645 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. McGann 645 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
requires suppression not only of the credit cards but also of Mr. DiLorenzo’s testimony about them.
State v. Smith 634 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Smith 634 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
State v. Valencia 589 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1979
State v. Valencia 589 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1979
It applies to oral evidence adduced from an officer’s testimony as to what he saw or found pursuant to an illegal search.” -12 , -14 (1965).
State v. Bowie 580 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1978
State v. Bowie 580 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1978
State v. Scott 576 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Scott 576 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The separate charges do not “state the same crime in different ways”
State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Urias 553 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Urias 553 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
“ , ” at 417-18 , at 227-28 (1971).
State v. Swafford 520 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Swafford 520 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
It is appellants’ , controls and error was committed by instructing on all three misdemeanors.
State v. Benge 520 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1974
State v. Benge 520 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1974
State v. Moore 519 P.2d 1145 Ariz. 1974
State v. Moore 519 P.2d 1145 Ariz. 1974
doesn’t apply because in Hunt the defendant had committed one crime and was being charged with the same in various ways.
State v. Jorgenson 502 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1972
State v. Jorgenson 502 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1972
*478 In addition, defendant Jorgenson contends that it was prejudicial error for the court to deny a , in.
State v. Wilson 497 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Wilson 497 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
As authority for his position, , which held that a denial of a motion for mistrial was an abuse of discretion notwithstanding striking of the irrelevant testimony relating to prior bad acts of the defendants.
State v. Morrow 493 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1972
State v. Morrow 493 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1972
State v. Gause 489 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1971
State v. Gause 489 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1971
is of assistance in determining whether appellant qualified as a person authorized to claim the privilege, notwithstanding that case dealt with the physician-patient privilege.
State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
However, defendant, relying, , contends that it was prejudicial error to submit both of these charges to the jury, and that inasmuch as defendant properly objected prior to submission to the jury, both must be reversed.
State v. Hunt 471 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Hunt 471 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
112 (E.D.Mich.1967); , (Mich.
State v. Lester 464 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Lester 464 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970