DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Carroll, 526 P.2d 1238.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Valenzuela Arella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Valenzuela Arella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Constructive possession need not be "exclusive, immediate, and personal," but a person's mere presence is insufficient to demonstrate control, ¶ 22 (App. 2016).
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Snow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Snow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Rawlings, 448 U.S. at 111; –19 (1974); Bonillas, 197 Ariz. at 98, ¶ 7.
  • State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (“[U]nder a theory of constructive possession, two or more persons may jointly possess a prohibited object; possession need not be ‘exclusive, immediate and personal.”) ().
  • State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    “[U]nder a theory of constructive possession, two or more persons may jointly possess a prohibited object; possession need not be ‘[e]xclusive, immediate and personal.’” Gonsalves, 297 P.3d at 929, (second alteration in Gonsalves); see also Villavicencio, 108 Ariz. at 520, 502 P.2d at 1339.
  • State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    Thus, under a theory of constructive possession, two or more persons may jointly possess a prohibited object; possession need not be “[ejxclusive, immediate and personal.”
  • State v. UNKEFER 239 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. UNKEFER 239 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    See, for example, ¶ 61 , (unique facts of each case determine what is reasonably necessary for indigent to present defense); , (test of constitutionality of search is whether search is reasonable under the circumstances); ¶ 16 , (restitution claim deadlines set by juvenile court must be reasonable under the circumstances).
  • State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    State v. Baker, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa 965 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa 965 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    For example, , the court upheld a transportation conviction where the only evidence of possession was a claim check stub held by the defendant that matched the claim ticket on the suitcase containing marijuana.
  • State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    (common carrier has the right to protect itself and not be an unwitting carrier of contraband).
  • State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Valenzuela 589 P.2d 1306 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Valenzuela 589 P.2d 1306 Ariz. 1979
    People v. Poole, 174 Cal.App.2d 57
  • State v. Curtis 562 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Curtis 562 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Gaitan 558 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Gaitan 558 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    quoting from United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 , 85 S.Ct.
  • State v. Baker 547 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Baker 547 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    and State v. Snodgrass, 19 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
    “The test of the constitutionality of a search is whether the search was reasonable under the circumstances of the case.” at 219 , at 1241 (1974).
  • In Re One 1970 Ford Van, Id No. 14ghj55174 533 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1975
  • Haranczak v. State 533 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1975
  • Haranczak v. State 533 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1975
    741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965)
  • In Re One 1970 Ford Van, Id No. 14ghj55174 533 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1975
    741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965)