Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hickle, 631 P.2d 112.

38 citing documents.

State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Hannah jr/ashley Buckman 472 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2020
State Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Hannah jr/ashley Buckman 472 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2020
we determined that if a defendant moves to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 24.2 before the court has entered the judgment and sentence, the motion is premature and cannot proceed.
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 24.1(b); (trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant defendant’s motion for a new trial filed more than 10 days after jury verdict).
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
(noting that a trial court lacks the power to grant a new trial after the Rule 24.1(b) time limit expires ( P.2d 1088 (1958))); State v. Hickle, 129 Ariz. 330, 332
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In addition, “it can be error to grant a motion for directed verdict when the evidence is such that reasonable minds could differ on the inferences to be drawn therefrom.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. Garland 756 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Garland 756 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
It would be error for the court to grant the motion “when the evidence is such that reasonable minds could differ on the inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
Maule v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY 690 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Maule v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY 690 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Where the evidence raises a question of fact for the jury and the evidence, if believed, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction, it is not only proper to deny a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, but it is error to grant the motion “when the evidence is such that reasonable minds could differ on the inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
State v. Villarreal 666 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Villarreal 666 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Hickle 650 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1982
State v. Hickle 650 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1982
State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982