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. Tinghitella, 491 P.2d 834.

122 citing documents.

  • State v. Ortiz 537 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ortiz 537 P.2d 29 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 recognized an “identical elements” test for determining whether two or more charges are based on the same “act”.
  • State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Cassius 520 P.2d 1109 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Cassius 520 P.2d 1109 Ariz. 1974
    The question of whether two offenses are the same, and the criteria for resolving that question
  • 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. Fimbres 510 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Fimbres 510 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    The essential elements of the crime of obstructing, as that crime is set forth in ARS § 13-541, , tobe: “ .
  • State v. Jorgenson 502 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Jorgenson 502 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. LaFleur 499 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. LaFleur 499 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    *28 Returning now to A.R.S § 13-1641, the double punishment prohibition, defendant argues that there was only one crime committed, the one murder, and that when the elements of that murder are removed from either count, , only one accessory count in the information will stand.
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Bartky 493 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Bartky 493 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Morrow 493 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Morrow 493 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1972
    have stated that we will not reverse a conviction upon the ground of inadequate assistance of counsel unless the accused can show that his representation was a farce ox a sham, shocking to the conscience, or a mockery of justice, , 491 ,P.2d 834, filed 17 December 1971; , .
  • State v. Horton 492 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Horton 492 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1972
    An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.”