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. Collins, 528 P.2d 829.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    ¶ 15 Evidence is not only intrinsic to the charged offense when it is “inextricably intertwined” with the evidence establishing the charged offense, but when it is necessary “to prove the complete story of the crime.”
  • State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    Arizona courts have long acknowledged that joint participation in a general felonious plan is enough to hold an accomplice liable as principal for any crime committed in the execution of the plan---- In State v. Collins, [ , ], our supreme court employed a foreseeability standard to uphold the first degree felony murder conviction of an accomplice.
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
    § 13-303(A) (1989) (criminal liability based upon conduct of another); , (defendant could be convicted and sentenced for first degree murder and armed robbery, even though defendant did not actually shoot victim).
  • State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    (evidence of defendant’s heroin addiction relevant to show defendant’s motive to commit robbery to obtain heroin).
  • State v. Cordero 851 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Cordero 851 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    § 13-139 and in any event the court found there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s participation in the offenses); , (involved prosecution for felony murder under A.R.S.
  • State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    (citing McNair, 141 Ariz. at 480 , 687 P.2d at 1235 )
  • State v. Anzivino 716 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Anzivino 716 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Rosthenhausler 711 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Rosthenhausler 711 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    (evidence of defendant’s heroin addiction held admissible in armed robbery-murder conviction).
  • State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Johnson 592 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Johnson 592 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Madrid 552 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Madrid 552 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
    Collins, , ; cf. In re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4, 14 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Vandeveer 533 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Vandeveer 533 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    While evidence of prior bad acts of defendant is generally inadmissible, , it is admissible to show the defendant’s state of mind, to complete the picture and to show his intent to sell this marijuana.