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