Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. George, 491 P.2d 838.

38 citing documents.

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. Green 570 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Green 570 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
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. Mayhew 555 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Mayhew 555 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Wilson 555 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1976
State v. Wilson 555 P.2d 321 Ariz. 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. 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. Barnett 531 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1975
State v. Barnett 531 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1975
State v. Benge 520 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1974
State v. Benge 520 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1974
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
See also, , , and State v. Bartky, 16 Ariz.App.
State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
State v. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
State v. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
State v. Alexander 503 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1972
State v. Alexander 503 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1972
§ 13-641] is the use of force or the putting in fear — in this case, the pointing of the pistol at the robbery victim.” at 7 , at 840 (1971).
State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
We have applied the test set out in Mitchell, supra, in three very recent robbery-assault cases: , , filed May 1, 1972; , , filed January 26, 1972; , , filed December 15, 1971.
State v. Lamb 497 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Lamb 497 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
our Supreme Court reiterated that the test to be applied for the determination of this; issue is to “eliminate the elements in one-charge and determine whether the facts-left would support the other charge.” This-test is a
State v. Belcher 496 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1972
State v. Belcher 496 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1972
The Mitchell test was the product of this court sitting in division but it was followed by our full bench, , .
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. Jernigan 492 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1972
State v. Jernigan 492 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1972
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.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by