Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ferrari, 541 P.2d 921.

95 citing documents.

State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
796 , 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980)
State v. Loyd 616 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1980
State v. Loyd 616 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1980
*367 While merely leaving the scene does not constitute flight in Arizona, , , , leaving the area and attempting concealment does, , , , rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct.
State v. Jordan 614 P.2d 825 Ariz. 1980
State v. Jordan 614 P.2d 825 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
The instruction that the court gave on killing in the perpetration of *371 a
State v. Austin 603 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1979
State v. Austin 603 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1979
State v. Cagle 603 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Cagle 603 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1979
State v. Razinha 599 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Razinha 599 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
we noted that a murder that is committed in perpetration of a burglary or any other specifically named felony is punishable as felony murder whether wilful and premeditated or only accidental.
State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
State v. Purcell 572 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1977
State v. Purcell 572 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1977
State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
This was not a case where malice aforethought was in issue, P.2d 921 (1975)
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
State v. Smith 569 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1977
State v. Smith 569 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1977
State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
State v. Henry 562 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1977
State v. Henry 562 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1977
State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 12, Supp. p. 14 (1973).
State v. Reid 559 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1976
State v. Reid 559 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1976
h must be proved by the defendant, is that “the dissemination of the prejudicial material will probably result in the party being deprived of a fair trial.” We have stated: “* * * the trial court’s ruling on a motion for change of venue will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and is shown to be prejudicial to the defendant, (citations omitted)”
State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Urias 553 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Urias 553 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Rhodes 543 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1975
State v. Rhodes 543 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1975
: “In United States v. Wilson, 447 F.2d 1 , (9th Cir. 1971), the court held it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to call as its own witness one who had been implicated in the crime.