Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dixon, 489 P.2d 225.

40 citing documents.

State v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(convictions of armed robbery modified to robbery); , (conviction of voluntary manslaughter modified to involuntary manslaughter); , (conviction of first degree burglary modified to second degree burglary); State v. Rowland, 12 Ariz.App.
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
we found that Miranda warnings could be renewed at an interrogation two hours after the original warnings by asking the accused if he had been advised of his constitutional rights.
State v. Puryear 590 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Puryear 590 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Although involuntary manslaughter involves an unintentional killing, , this does not mean that it is a crime of strict liability.
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
State v. Eliason 544 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Eliason 544 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Rowland, 12 Ariz.App.
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
State v. Pereda 529 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1974
State v. Pereda 529 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1974
Furthermore, such evidence must establish that the witness had been subpoenaed and his nonappearance at the trial was in no way the fault of the State
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
6 , ” at 417-18 , at 227-28 (1971).
State v. Miller 522 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1974
State v. Miller 522 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
It would seem strange indeed to allow testimony from the preliminary hearing to be admitted when the witness is present and refused to testify, , and yet not allow the testimony from a former trial on the same issues with the same party.
State v. Moore 506 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
State v. Moore 506 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
We are satisfied it neither violates the confrontation clause of the Arizona Constitution, art. 2, § 24, nor the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as long as the defendant has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and there was “ * * * a sufficient good faith showing * * * that the witness [es] had been subpoenaed and *116 [was] not available for the trial * * , See also, Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Haynie 505 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Haynie 505 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Jones 505 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1973
State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The trial court has the “duty to instruct the jury on every grade of offense reasonably supported by the evidence and conversely, to refuse to instruct as to the other grades of the offense not reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State v. Jones 505 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1973
State v. Hall 504 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Hall 504 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970)
State v. Quila 502 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1972
State v. Quila 502 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1972
State v. Morrow 493 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1972
State v. Morrow 493 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1972