Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ballinger, 520 P.2d 294.
- In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- State v. Sarno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Sarno
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Thomas, 196 Ariz. at 313, ¶ 3, 996 P.2d at 114
- State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
-
State v. Cheramie
189 P.3d 374
Ariz. 2008
Thus, the state can establish the mental state by simply demonstrating “the transfer of any amount [of drugs] when the accompanying circumstances indicate an intent to sell.” Id.; (no usable quantity requirement for sale); (same); State v. Espinosa, 101 Ariz. 474, 476, (same).
- State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
- State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
- State v. Thomas 996 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
- State v. Thomas 996 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
- State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Figueroa 593 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- State v. Figueroa 593 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- State v. Donahoe 574 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- State v. Donahoe 574 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- State v. Rivera 569 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Rivera 569 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- State v. Espinoza 555 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Espinoza 555 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Toney 555 P.2d 650 Ariz. 1976
-
State v. Toney
555 P.2d 650
Ariz. 1976
State v. Schroeder, supra; State v. Hatten, supra
- State v. Astorga 546 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
-
State v. Astorga
546 P.2d 1142
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Second, , there was a question as to whether appellant’s possession of the heroin was incidental to a sale or obtained solely for the purpose of a sale.
- State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
-
State v. Kiser
546 P.2d 831
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
an instruction on the lesser included offense of possession should not be given where possession of the drugs was obtained solely for the purpose of the particular sale.
- State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court 545 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1976
- State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court 545 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Barnett 540 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Barnett 540 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Rose 535 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Rose 535 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Reese 527 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Reese 527 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974