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. Arce, 483 P.2d 1395.

66 citing documents.

  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    More specifically, tlie Arizona Supreme Court has stated that, “Unlawful possession of narcotics 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. Villavicencio, supra.
  • State v. Villavicencio 502 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Villavicencio 502 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Thompson 502 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Thompson 502 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1972
    Baker v. Wainwright, 422 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1970); , , cert.
  • State v. Basurto 501 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Basurto 501 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    and that no reasonable person could conclude otherwise.....” a verdict of possession alone must be contrary to logic and to the law
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
    784 , 17 L.Ed.2d 687 (1967).”
  • State v. Aikins 497 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Aikins 497 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
    a case wherein the Arizona Supreme Court did not permit counts of both possession and possession for sale of marijuana to stand, , where our Supreme Court did not permit a conviction of both possession and possession for sale of heroin to stand.
  • State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971