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. Magby, 554 P.2d 1272.

47 citing documents.

  • State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    at 476, ¶ 16, 65 P.3d at 425 ( , ).
  • State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
    ined car “compromises no legitimate privacy interest”) (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 123 (1984)); -13, -02 (1981) (holding that a dog sniff of luggage in a public place is not a search); aff’d and adopted, P.2d 1272 (1976) (holding that use of narcotics dog by police officers, who lawfully stopped defendants’ vehicle to investigate possible presence of marijuana, did not constitute a search).
  • State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
    it must be shown that a plan to murder was formed after the matter had been made a subject of deliberation and reflection....”); , (upholding a jury instruction that read “[i]n order to find a deliberate and premeditated killing you must find more reflection on the part of the defendant than is involved in the mere formation of the specific intent to kill”).
  • State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Under the pre-1978 code, the supreme court upheld the following jury instruction on premeditation: “In order to find a deliberate and premeditated killing you must find more reflection on the part of the defendant than is involved in the mere formation of the specific intent to kill.”
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Winter 706 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    210 , , approved and adopted
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
    “ * * * To allow this information to be admitted without defendant’s consent would have a chilling effect on the honest and free flow of information between the doctor and patient while the patient is being examined as to his competency to stand trial.”
  • State v. Morrow 625 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1981
    210 , , aff’d and adopted
  • State v. Torres 620 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Torres 620 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Morrow 625 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
    While the language therein does not comport with the language we have approved previously, , , , , different phraseology alone is insufficient to constitute reversible error.
  • State v. Eason 604 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    210 , aff’d. and opinion adopted
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
    stating: “Whether the intoxication negated the malice and reduced the crime from murder to manslaughter is a question of fact to be determined by the jury.” 113 Ariz. at 353 , 554 P.2d at 1280 .
  • State v. 1969 Volkswagon Bus, Vin 239199800, 1977 Wyoming License No. 2365J 586 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    210 , approved and adopted as the opinion of the Supreme Court
  • State v. Canaday 574 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Rivera 569 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rivera 569 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1977
    Defendant, however, cites this court’s
  • State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
    relying on Rule 11.7(b)(1) and A.R.S.
  • 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. Jeffers 568 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Jeffers 568 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    which holds that in-custody statements about a later crime made to a probation officer without Miranda warnings are inadmissible when the probationer is later tried for that crime, is inapplicable.
  • State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Freeman 559 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1976