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. Norgard, 429 P.2d 670.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    the court noted that similarity of names was some evidence of identity.
  • State v. Thompson 711 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Thompson 711 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Marquez 617 P.2d 787 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Marquez 617 P.2d 787 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    do not apply in that those cases involved enhanced punishment under Arizona’s former recidivist statute, A.R.S.
  • State v. Tamplin 613 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Tamplin 613 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Hadley 559 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Hadley 559 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    We think the standard of proof applicable to a
  • State v. Linne 501 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Linne 501 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Black 494 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Black 494 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
    That there is an extra link in the chain of evidence, that is, that these records tended to prove that the defend *244 ant is the same person who was convicted in 1961 and that that person, in turn, was the same person convicted in 1954, we do not believe necessarily required the exclusion of the proof offered.”
  • State v. Jackson 457 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Jackson 457 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Forteson 447 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Forteson 447 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    this court held that, in meeting the burden of proof cast upon-it, “ * * * the State is entitled to go to any reasonable source of evidence * * Though the method taken here was somewhat awkward, counsel for the State-avowed that he had no other ready means-of establishing the defendant’
  • State v. Love 444 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Love 444 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    and see Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 115, at 229-30 (1960).