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. Boccelli, 467 P.2d 740.

52 citing documents.

  • State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    ¶ 6 Before enactment of the statute, ease law provided that if a defendant raised the defense of entrapment “ ‘the prosecution [had to] establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not entrapped into committing the offense.’ ” McKinney, 108 Ariz. at 440 , 501 P.2d at 382 , quoting State v. Boccelli
  • State v. Rocha-Rocha 935 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Rocha-Rocha 935 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    This is not a case where the government “supplied all the ingredients of the offense.” , (entrapment as a matter of law established when state’s agents not only induced sale of marijuana, but provided drug, buyer, and money for purchase).
  • State v. Cramer 851 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Cramer 851 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Jackson 760 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Jackson 760 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    (crucial element of entrapment defense is that intent to commit crime must not arise in mind of accused).
  • State v. Stinson 703 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Stinson 703 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    A sampling of the cases urged as authority for approving the trial court’s dismissal include the following: , where state agents supplied the plan, the marijuana, the buyer and the money; People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320 , 172 N.E.2d 765 (1961), where government agents supplied the very narcotics giving rise to the offense (government sup *91 plied the sine qua non of the offense); U.S. v. Twigg, 588 F.2
  • State v. Johnson 693 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Johnson 693 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    in arguing that the evidence in this case established entrapment as a matter of law.
  • State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    Denial of Directed Verdict The appellant attempts to bring this case within the “entrapment as a matter of law”
  • State v. MacK 654 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
    Defendant cites State v. *17 Boccelli, , , wherein we held that entrapment is established where there is un-contradicted evidence that the illegal drug was supplied by the government or its agents.
  • State v. Quinonez 580 P.2d 346 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Quinonez 580 P.2d 346 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Fumusa v. ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY 545 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Fumusa v. ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY 545 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    The criminal conduct must be the product of the creative activity of law enforcement officials, , .’
  • State v. Cox 522 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Cox 522 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1974
    He bases that contention on the “fact” that the informant Whitney “supplied” the marijuana
  • State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
    to support his claim that entrapment was established as a matter of law.
  • State v. Keener 520 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Keener 520 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Masengill 518 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Masengill 518 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Fox 515 P.2d 322 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fox 515 P.2d 322 Ariz. 1973
    : “We know of no conviction for the sale of narcotics that has been sustained when the narcotics sold were supplied by an agent of the government.” Though defense counsel did not ask the specific question of whether the informant had sold any of the contraband found during the search, it would obv
  • State v. Mendoza 511 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Mendoza 511 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fassler 503 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. McKinney 501 P.2d 378 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. McKinney 501 P.2d 378 Ariz. 1972
    The criminal conduct must be the product of the creative activity of law enforcement officials, , .”
  • State v. Chudy 492 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Chudy 492 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1972
    The .Martin case, , stated that the essence of an *25 entrapment is “an inducement to commit a crime which the accused would not have otherwise committed.” In Martin , an “inducement” was found, but the facts of the Martin case are clearly distinguishable from those in the instant case.