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. Estrada, 550 P.2d 1080.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    e.g., Webb, 186 Ariz. at 561 , 925 P.2d at 702 (defendant acquitted of felony DUI but convicted of DUI and driving without license); -16 , -77 (App.1992) (defendant convicted of aggravated assault with deadly weapon, but crime found not to be dangerous-nature offense); State v. Estrada, *68 -40 , -82 (1976) (defendant guilty of conspiracy but acquitted of underlying drug offenses).
  • State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    For these manifest reasons proof of a criminal combination to do an unlawful act can rarely be made except by light reflected from its consequences or results.’ , ( , ).
  • State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    and both are inapposite to this case.
  • State v. Denman 923 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Denman 923 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (finding that unlawful agreement can be inferred from the overt conduct of the parties).
  • State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    See, , (acquittal of defendant on charges of possession and transportation of heroin did not require reversal of conviction of conspiracy, even though only overt acts alleged were subject of acquittals).
  • State v. Parsons 827 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Parsons 827 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    for example, this court upheld a conviction for conspiracy to violate state narcotics laws even though the only evidence of an overt act was the substantive offense of heroin possession, of which the defendant was acquitted.
  • State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Viertel 636 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Viertel 636 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Salazar 557 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Salazar 557 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    the fact that the jury found appellant not guilty of the substantive offenses does not necessarily mean it found he was not in possession of the heroin.
  • State v. Dupuy 550 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Dupuy 550 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    ' P.2d 1080 (released this date), we held that an acquittal by the jury on the substantive offense and a finding of guilty on conspiracy charge is not an inconsistent verdict and does not require reversal even though the overt act necessary to sustain the conspiracy conviction was the same act which formed the basi