Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Parker, 558 P.2d 905.

32 citing documents.

State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“[I]t is the jury’s function to weigh the evidence as a whole, to resolve any inconsistencies therein and then to determine whether or not a reasonable doubt exists.”) ().
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[I]t is the jury’s function to weigh the evidence as a whole, to resolve any inconsistencies therein and then to determine whether or not a reasonable doubt exists.”) ().
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[I]t is the jury’s function to weigh the evidence as a whole, to resolve any inconsistencies therein and then to determine whether or not a reasonable doubt exists.”).
State v. Wyninger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wyninger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 6 (App. 2004) (explaining that it is “the function of the jury” to weigh evidence and “determine the credibility of the witnesses”); (explaining that “it is the jury’s function to weigh the evidence as a whole, to resolve any inconsistencies therein and then to determine whether or not a reasonable doubt exists”).
State v. Smith 828 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Smith 828 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Belcher 776 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Belcher 776 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
(The former criminal code’s twenty-five year prohibition against parole following conviction for first degree murder did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.).
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State v. Anderson 623 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Anderson 623 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
State ex rel. Hyder v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State ex rel. Hyder v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Puryear 590 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Puryear 590 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
State v. Sanchez 573 P.2d 60 Ariz. 1977
The jury was free to believe or disbelieve the testimony of the experts and find the defendant sane “if the evidence presented would allow it to reasonably entertain a theory resulting in a belief in defendant’s sanity.”
State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977
State v. Overton 562 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1977