Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. King, 514 P.2d 1032.

92 citing documents.

State v. Skinner 578 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Skinner 578 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
and was not inconsistent with Rule 609(a), Arizona Rules of Evidence.
State v. Loyd 574 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Loyd 574 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
State v. Bohn 570 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1977
State v. Bohn 570 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1977
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Jimenez 563 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Jimenez 563 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 549 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 549 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Williams 545 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1976
State v. Williams 545 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1976
“Although the essence of the crime of rape is the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim, § 13-612 A.R.S., there can nevertheless be no rape without some penetration, however slight.” at 40 , at 1036 (1973).
State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
affirmed after remand on other grounds
State v. Hardy 540 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1975
State v. Hardy 540 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1975
State v. Scott 537 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Scott 537 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975
State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975
State v. Domme 532 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1975
State v. Domme 532 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1975
State v. Pavao 530 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Pavao 530 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. McDonald 526 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Followed State v. McDonald 526 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
the admissibility of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes was upheld with this statement: ‘We reaffirm our previous position that the rule which allows impeachment by prior felony convictions is not constitutionally defective.
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
State v. Mayes, 110 Ariz., 318
State v. Mayes 518 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1974
Followed State v. Mayes 518 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1974
the admissibility of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes was upheld with this statement: “We reaffirm our previous position that the rule which allows impeachment by prior felony convictions is not constitutionally defective.
State v. Mayes 515 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Mayes 515 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974