Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hickle, 650 P.2d 1216.

31 citing documents.

State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“[T]o prove accomplice liability, the State must show that [the defendant] participated or aided the planning or commission of the crime....
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[A] conviction rests upon insufficient evidence when, even after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 37 (1982); (disagreeing with trial court’s determination “no credible, clear evidence” was introduced of premeditation under sufficiency of the evidence analysis).
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“Being a void order [entered by a court without the jurisdictional power to do so], it is of no force and effect and may not be a basis of a double jeopardy bar.”).
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
(affirming grant of new trial based on newly discovered evidence of co-participant’s perjury at trial, rejecting state’s assertion that defendant’s conviction should be sustained based on accomplice liability).
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(mistrial); , (new trial).
State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
State v. Orantez 902 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1995
State v. Orantez 902 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1995
24.2 & 32.1(e); see United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 456-57 (2d Cir. 1991); Fisher, 176 Ariz. at 75 , 859 P.2d at 185
State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
(noting that trial judges are “in the best position to evaluate [recanted testimony’s] credibility and effect”).
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. Williams 819 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Williams 819 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Bush 714 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1986
State v. Bush 714 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1986
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
“[T]o prove accomplice liability, the State must show that [defendant] participated or aided the planning or commission of the crime * *
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984