Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Miramon, 555 P.2d 1139.

28 citing documents.

State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Franko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cf. Carroll, 90 Ariz. at 412–14 (finding evidence insufficient where drugs were found near a bench outside of an airport, in a place clearly accessible to the public); –53 (1976) (finding evidence insufficient where drugs were found under the passenger seat of a vehicle with multiple occupants).
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Joiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(drugs found outside an apartment); (drugs found behind a bench outside Sky Harbor airport); (drugs found under the passenger seat of a car containing three people).
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Furthermore, it is not necessary to show that a defendant exercised exclusive possession or control over the drugs or the place in which the drugs were found; “control or right to control is sufficient.” (noting that possession of narcotic drugs may be sole or joint, and two or more persons may have joint possession thereof).
State of Arizona v. Kevin Ottar and Ruan Junior Hamilton 302 P.3d 622 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Kevin Ottar and Ruan Junior Hamilton 302 P.3d 622 Ariz. 2013
State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Bustamante 274 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Distinguished State v. Bustamante 274 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(mere presence in vicinity of contraband is not enough).
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
(noting that the defendant’s “mere presence” where contraband is found is insufficient to establish knowing possession of the contraband).
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Possession need not be exclusive—it “may be sole or joint.”
State v. Medina-Espinoza 593 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1979
State v. Medina-Espinoza 593 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1979
State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Appellant relies principally on United States v. Martinez, 514 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1975)
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
Appellant’s , is misplaced; in Miramon there was no circumstantial or direct evidence that the defendant had physical control of the narcotics or placed them into the automobile, before they were subsequently located within the car.
State v. Green 570 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Green 570 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977