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. Duke, 518 P.2d 570.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
    Thus, a victim’s state of mind was held to be relevant in cases where the issue was suicide, , or self-defense, People v. Atchley, 53 Cal.2d 160 , cert.
  • State v. Montano 667 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Montano 667 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1983
    *606 , this Court quoted with approval the following language: "`[B]oth the State and the defendant are entitled to a fair and impartial jury.
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Lehman 616 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Lehman 616 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    Unlike the situation in State v. Izzo, supra, where a defense of accident was interposed, , , vacated on other grounds, 409 U.S. 815 , 93 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
    § 13-132; , , , State v. Ramirez, 116 Ariz. *525 259, R. Gerber & F. Foreman, Arizona’s Criminal Law: The Critical Need for Comprehensive Revision, 18 Ariz.L.Rev.
  • State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
    Unlike the situations in State v. Izzo, supra, where a defense of accident was interposed, , where the appellant claimed suicide, or People v. Atchley, 53 Cal.2d 160 , where a claim of self-defense was raised, there were no material issues in dispute here in which the state of mind of the victim was relevant.
  • State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
    § 13-132; , , ); therefore the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that similar treatment be given to mental illness and specific intent.
  • State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Williams 569 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Williams 569 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Parker 558 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Parker 558 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1976
    State v. Duke, 110 Ariz, 320, 325
  • State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
    We have held that “use of a deadly weapon such as a gun, standing alone, is sufficient evidence from which the jury may *322 find malice.”
  • State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. DeGraw 550 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. DeGraw 550 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    our Supreme Court pointed out the special considerations involved when search and seizure questions are raised relating to premises upon which a deceased victim has been found.
  • State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    State v. Hilliard, supra.
  • State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Richmond 540 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Richmond 540 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1975