DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mitchell, 478 P.2d 517.

64 citing documents.

  • State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
    we allowed an officer to give an opinion as to a defendant’s sanity even though that opinion was based partly on a conversation with the defendant which had been suppressed by the trial court.
  • State v. Harmon 643 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Harmon 643 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    He arrives at this conclusion by purported application of the “identical elements test,” , from which he concludes that removal of the facts supporting the one conviction in each case leaves sufficient facts to support the other.
  • State v. Warren 604 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Warren 604 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Holley 599 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Holley 599 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Green 570 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Green 570 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1977
    § 13-1641 , : “The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.” 106 Ariz. at 495 , 478 P.2d at 520 .
  • State v. Arnold 565 P.2d 1282 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Arnold 565 P.2d 1282 Ariz. 1977
  • 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
    § 13-1641 , : “The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.” 106 Ariz. at 495 , 478 P.2d at 520 .
  • State v. Raron 563 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Raron 563 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    where the Court stated that in order to determine whether or not there was a merger one must remove the elements of one charge and see if there are sufficient facts left to support the other charge.
  • State v. Zamora 559 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Zamora 559 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Celaya 556 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Celaya 556 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    wherein the court proposed the following test: “The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.” 106 Ariz. at 492 , 478 P.2d at 520 .
  • State v. Tucker 557 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Tucker 557 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1976
    The test to be applied when it is alleged that certain conduct has given rise to two criminal prosecutions and punishments was *477 , as follows: “The practical test is to eliminate the elements of one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.” 106 Ariz. at 495 , 478 P.2d at 520 .
  • State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    State v. Salazar, 24 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Castro 554 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Castro 554 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Ormsby 532 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ormsby 532 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Williams 526 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Williams 526 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1974
    State v. Mitchell, 106 Ariz, 492
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” , , there appeared to be some confusion in applying A.R.S.
  • State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
    481 P.2d *257 844 (1971)
  • State v. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
    [IS] We have applied the “identical elements” test in interpreting this section stating: “The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.”
  • State v. Alexander 503 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Alexander 503 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1972
    -497, 478 ,P.2d 517, 521-522 (1970).
  • State v. Gregory 501 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Gregory 501 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1972
    It merely requires that the act be committed ‘by a person armed with a gun.’ So the question of whether the gun was loaded is not involved in the instant case.”
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
    was recently set forth by Justice McFarland: “* * * The practical test is to eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.”
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Belcher 496 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Belcher 496 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Horton 492 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Horton 492 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1972