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. Talley, 540 P.2d 1249.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    –81 (1984); – 19 (1969).
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (distinguishing Rood when the defendants entered a business and ran when the owners caught them standing with mechanic’s tools over the open hood of a car); (distinguishing a late-night entry while possessing the victim’s revolver from the mid-morning entry in Rood and holding that a jury, to find intent, could consider a defendant’s attempt to hide); –71 (1971) (narrowly applying Rood to instances where there is no forci
  • State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (holding “[ejvidence that an individual was found in the possession of property from the building may support an inference that he had the requisite intent to commit a crime at the time he entered the premises”).
  • State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Killean 907 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Killean 907 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Although the Arizona Supreme Court did uphold the preclusion of a criminal defendant’s based upon the constitutionality of schemes requiring timely disclosure, Talley preceded both (Joe U.) Smith—the case in which the Arizona Supreme Court enumerated the four factors to guide courts when precluding evidence—and Taylor .
  • State v. Tubbs 747 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Tubbs 747 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    497, 499 , (jurors could infer intent from unauthorized entry into premises gained by force); accord, , (jurors could infer intent from late hour, unauthorized entry, unexplained activity and presence in the residence, and attempt to hide); , (jurors could infer intent from entry through a window).
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987
    See Rule 15.2, Rules of Criminal Procedure; , , , ce rt.
  • In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 61935-4 669 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 61935-4 669 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    Here several sufficient additional factors are present: appellant’s unexplained presence at the locker with his hand extended into it, , his attempt to flee upon discovery, see State v. Talley, supra; his unsatisfactory explanation for the entry, , the entry by forcing a lock, see State v. Rodriguez, supra, and State v. Hunter, supra.
  • State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    While our Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Rule 15.2, , , no Arizona appellate decision has specifically addressed this Fifth Amendment question.
  • State v. Edgar 613 P.2d 1262 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Edgar 613 P.2d 1262 Ariz. 1980
    It is well settled that criminal intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, , and there was ample evidence before this jury to support an inference of intent to permanently deprive these women of their money.
  • State v. Gonzales 596 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Gonzales 596 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    State v. Scott, 24 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Gutierrez 589 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Gutierrez 589 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Dorow 569 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Dorow 569 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 560 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 560 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1977
    E. g., , (late hour, unexplained presence in residence of another, and attempt to hide upon discovery); , (entry through win *334 dow); , (possession of recently stolen property is insufficient).
  • State v. Williams 556 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Williams 556 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1976
    “The court could properly have concluded pursuant to Rule 15.7 that this was ‘just under the circumstances’ as the last minute disclosure of the proposed witness left the prosecution effectively unable to rebut .