Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Arce, 483 P.2d 1395.

66 citing documents.

State v. Whipple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Whipple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(observing that “[i]t was the function of the jury to decide what reasonable inferences could be drawn from the evidence”); see also Thompson, 832 A.2d at 654 (noting that defendant’s statement “[j]ust arrest me” was “consistent with consciousness of guilt”).
State v. Bobbitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bobbitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
see also Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653 (1946) (explaining impermissible speculation occurs when there is “a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached”).
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, ¶ 18 (2008); –62 (1971).
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“It [is] the function of the jury to decide what reasonable inferences could be drawn from the evidence.”).
State v. Cardenas-Salcido Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cardenas-Salcido Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(―Circumstantial evidence may be used to show that the accused possessed the narcotics for sale rather than for his individual use.‖); (―[C]ircumstantial evidence regarding the quantity of contraband .
State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
(requiring knowledge for possession); (citing Moreno with approval).
State v. Salinas 887 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1994
State v. Salinas 887 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1994
State v. Diaz 803 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Diaz 803 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Carreon 729 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Carreon 729 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Sotomayor 736 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Sotomayor 736 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
1598 , 39 L.Ed.2d 892 (1974); , , , State v. Ballez, supra.
State v. White 701 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. White 701 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
111 Ariz. at 510 , 533 P.2d at 1145 ( , ).
State v. Medina-Espinoza 593 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1979
State v. Medina-Espinoza 593 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1979
State v. Miramon, 27 Ariz.App.
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Murphy 570 P.2d 1070 Ariz. 1977
State v. Murphy 570 P.2d 1070 Ariz. 1977
State v. Jenson 562 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1977
State v. Jenson 562 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1977
We have stated that unlawful possession of a narcotic: “is established by proof that the accused exercised dominion and control over a substance, that he had knowledge of its presence, and that he had knowledge that the substance was a narcotic.”
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. 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. Miramon 555 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Miramon 555 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Barreras 542 P.2d 1120 Ariz. 1975
State v. Barreras 542 P.2d 1120 Ariz. 1975
State v. Harrison 533 P.2d 1143 Ariz. 1975
State v. Harrison 533 P.2d 1143 Ariz. 1975
State v. Keener 520 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1974
State v. Keener 520 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1974
State v. Pineda 519 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1974
State v. Pineda 519 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1974
was authority for the position he took in this case.
State v. Diaz 514 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1973
State v. Diaz 514 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1973
695 (1967), the court stated that the quantity and quality of the heroin and the nature of its packaging and location reasonably supported the inference that it was held for sale.”
State v. Jung 506 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Jung 506 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Aikins, 17 Ariz.App.