Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Printz, 609 P.2d 570.

43 citing documents.

State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–03 (1980) (police officer could testify to value of stolen television based on past experience inquiring into costs of similar televisions).
In Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-02, 304-05 (1980) (explaining that the jury could use “common sense” to determine the value of stolen property and upholding conviction for attempted possession of stolen property—a television—even though the only evidence was an officer’s testimony about the price of similar television sets); State v. Brockell
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[W]hen determining value, the jury should be permitted to utilize its common sense.”).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Jose Dejesus Villegas-Rojas 296 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Dejesus Villegas-Rojas 296 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
erts his guilty plea was “the product of ineffective assistance of counsel” 1 It is Villegas-Rojas’s responsibility to ensure the record “contains the material to which he takes exception,” & n.1, & n.1 (App. 1993), and missing parts of the record generally are presumed to support the trial court’s ruling
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State of Arizona v. Richard Lee Palmer 270 P.3d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Richard Lee Palmer 270 P.3d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
vez, ¶¶ 8, 9 , 239 P.3d at 763 ; ¶¶ 54, 56 , (testimony about person’s “[n]onverbal conduct is hearsay if it is intended to be an assertion”; officer’s testimony that witness’s “actions and body language were visibly very different” at mention of defendant not intended as assertion and not hearsay); , (hearsay limited to words or conduct “intended by the actor as an assertion”; police officer’s purchase of television for $299.85 not intended as assertion of value).
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Mendoza 891 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Mendoza 891 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Carreon 729 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Carreon 729 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. De Nistor 694 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1985
State v. De Nistor 694 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1985
State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Jackson 677 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Jackson 677 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Jackson 677 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Jackson 677 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Sisneros 670 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1983
State v. Sisneros 670 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Romero 659 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Romero 659 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982