Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tinghitella, 491 P.2d 834.

122 citing documents.

State v. Williams 656 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Williams 656 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In order to determine whether the statute has been violated, we must apply the “identical elements test.”
State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
State v. Rumsey 636 P.2d 1209 Ariz. 1981
State v. Rumsey 636 P.2d 1209 Ariz. 1981
we adopted the “identical elements” test for determining whether the proscription of Arizona’s multiple punishment statute applies to a particular case.
State v. Rogowski 634 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1981
State v. Rogowski 634 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1981
State v. Bruni 630 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Bruni 630 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Cruz 617 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1980
State v. Cruz 617 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gordon 610 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gordon 610 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1980
State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
Consequently, appellant may not now claim error, , unless the error is fundamental.
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
An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” , and contends that under the “identical elements test”, we must eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left on the other charges would support convictions on any other charges.
State v. Gracia 590 P.2d 1363 Ariz. 1979
State v. Gracia 590 P.2d 1363 Ariz. 1979
set forth the proper test to apply to determine the number of acts which may be punishable under § 13-1641.
State v. Davis 582 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1978
State v. Davis 582 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1978
*534 , we adopted an identical elements test for determining whether a conviction was barred by A.R.S.
State v. Bowie 580 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1978
State v. Bowie 580 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1978
State v. Ferguson 579 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1978
State v. Ferguson 579 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1978
this court adopted an identical elements test for determining whether A.R.S.
State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Bohn 570 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1977
State v. Bohn 570 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1977
State v. Snodgrass 570 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Snodgrass 570 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
2 have previously been delineated as follows: “(1) the wilful resisting, delaying, coercing or obstructing, (2) of a public officer, (3) in the discharge of his duty.” , State v. Fimbres, 20 Ariz.App.
State v. Tucker 557 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1976
State v. Tucker 557 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1976
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. Torres 556 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Torres 556 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Gomez 553 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Gomez 553 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.” , , State v. Reim, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Reim 549 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Reim 549 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
§ 13-1641 is applicable is to “eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.”
State v. Ortiz 546 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1976
State v. Ortiz 546 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1976
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” , our Supreme Court adopted an “identical elements” test for determining whether A.R.S.
State v. Salazar 539 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Salazar 539 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
§ 13-1641 1 *•, prohibiting double punishment