Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Evans, 512 P.2d 1225.
-
State v. Weigel
554 P.2d 1286
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
The State relies on Rule 26.13, supra, , states that incarceration in the county jail is a sentence of imprisonment the foregoing rule should apply.
- State v. Lopez 557 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Lopez 557 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Pitts 548 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Pitts 548 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Pakula 547 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1976
-
State v. Pakula
547 P.2d 476
Ariz. 1976
this Court pointed out that the use of confinement as a condition of probation was strictly limited to the period provided by A.R.S.
- State v. Miner 546 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Miner 546 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Clark 543 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1975
-
State v. Clark
543 P.2d 1122
Ariz. 1975
this court held that the failure of a trial court to instruct the jury on a matter vital to the rights of the defendant would be fundamental error.
- State v. Thomas 540 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Thomas 540 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Hardy 540 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Hardy 540 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Banks 539 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
-
State v. Banks
539 P.2d 173
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
for the proposition that in matters vital to the case, the trial judge is required to instruct the jury on' its own motion, even if not requested by the defense.
- State v. Settle 531 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1975
-
State v. Settle
531 P.2d 151
Ariz. 1975
It is the judge’s duty to instruct the jury upon the law concerning the facts of the case and upon “matters vital to a proper consideration of the evidence.”
- State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Gamble 523 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Gamble 523 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Thompson 518 P.2d 120 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Thompson 518 P.2d 120 Ariz. 1974