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. Dutton, 478 P.2d 87.

27 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
    Instead, as we repeatedly have held, we will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the error.”); (refusing to consider a defendant’s argument on appeal that the jury instructions requested by the defendant at trial misstated the law).
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 49 (2003) (“[P]hysical evidence is not required to sustain a conviction if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted))
  • State v. Logan 30 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Logan 30 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2001
    See, e.g., Diaz, 168 Ariz. at 365 , 813 P.2d at 730 (invited error is waived for appeal purposes); , (party cannot object on appeal to a requested instruction); , (court refused to consider as grounds of error instructions requested by defendant); , (“A party
  • State v. Diaz 813 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Diaz 813 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1991
    (a defendant cannot complain on appeal that an instruction placed burden of proving innocence upon defendant, when defendant did not object to instruction at trial and in fact requested it)
  • State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jacobs 515 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Jacobs 515 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Trotter 514 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Trotter 514 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1973
    Taking the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, as we must on appeal, , they are as follows: On October 21, 1971 at approximately 10:00 p. m. a 7/11 convenience market in South Phoenix was held up by a lone gunman.
  • State v. Jefferson 503 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Jefferson 503 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Buggs 501 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Buggs 501 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Gering 498 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Gering 498 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1972
    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, , we believe there was ample evidence to support, not only the instructions given, but the verdict found by the jury of second degree murder.
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Lerma 495 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Lerma 495 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Harris 481 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Harris 481 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1971
    they are as follows: Both the defendant and the complaining witness (hereafter called “the victim” or “the boy”) were mentally retarded and attended special education classes in their respective schools.