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. Pittman, 574 P.2d 1290.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Castaneda 517 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Castaneda 517 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶19 But whether a child “is incapable of formulating an abstract definition of truth aids [the court] very little in determining whether that child has an intuitive grasp of the difference between truth and falsehood.”
  • State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
  • State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
    12, 2011) (en banc) (citations omitted); (finding premeditated murder conviction supported by evidence that defendant entered victim’s house with gun and then shot the victim three times).
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Kamai 911 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Kamai 911 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
    (“proof that an eight year old child is incapable of formulating an abstract definition of truth aids us very little in determining whether that child has an intuitive grasp of the difference between truth and falsehood”).
  • State v. Clark 693 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Clark 693 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
    The elements may be shown by the use of circumstantial evidence, , “and all reasonable inferences will be resolved against the defendant.” Id.
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
    When the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the State and all inferences drawn against appellants, , it is apparent substantial evidence exists to support a finding that the guns were held in a manner so they could be used to immediately injure the civilians.
  • State v. Van Dyke 621 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Van Dyke 621 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1980
    We have on many occasions said a breaking or otherwise unlawful entry are not elements of burglary, , , , In re Appeal in Maricopa Juvenile Action No. J-75755, , , State v. Hogue, 15 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Hills 605 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Hills 605 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
    See also the following cases, which uphold rulings that a seven year old, Davis v. Weber, supra, an eight year old, , and a nine year old, , were competent to testify.