Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Seebold, 531 P.2d 1130.

32 citing documents.

State v. Livanos 725 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Livanos 725 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Good v. City of Glendale 722 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Good v. City of Glendale 722 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Pincock v. Dupnik 703 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Pincock v. Dupnik 703 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Tamplin 613 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Tamplin 613 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1979
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1979
this Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Arizona case law and found that an actual intent to harm is not an element of assault with a deadly weapon when a traditionally deadly weapon is used.
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
Absent a stipulation, e. g., , evidence of or reference to a polygraph test is inadmissible for any reason.
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1163 Ariz. 1978
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1163 Ariz. 1978
P.2d 1130 (1975); United States v. Harvey, 428 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1970).
State v. Butcher 585 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Butcher 585 P.2d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
“Once it is shown that the person assaulted the victim with a gun there is no further need to show that he intended to do harm with that gun.”
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
1517 , 47 L.Ed.2d 767 ; , State v. Dillon, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Bell 551 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1976
State v. Bell 551 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1976
All three weapons were loaded “and a loaded gun is a deadly weapon.”
State v. White 549 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. White 549 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Dillon 547 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Dillon 547 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. MacUmber 544 P.2d 1084 Ariz. 1976
State v. MacUmber 544 P.2d 1084 Ariz. 1976
who possessed only a more than common interest in weapons, Byers possessed a university degree in chemistry and had informally studied with an undisputed expert on the subject of firearms identification.
State v. Smith 544 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1975
State v. Smith 544 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1975
State v. Gary 543 P.2d 782 Ariz. 1975
State v. Gary 543 P.2d 782 Ariz. 1975
United States v. Harvey, 428 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1970).