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. Malloy, 639 P.2d 315.

92 citing documents.

  • State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • 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
    The state also argues that although the prosecutor may have acted presumptuously in “supplementing” the trial court’s instructions during closing, no reversible error occurred because the passage read by the prosecutor is a
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    (jury can infer intent to commit burglary from fact that defendant broke a window to gain entrance); -34 , -41 (1977) (jury can infer intent from forced entry and unsatisfactory explanation for entry); State v. Tubbs, 155 Ariz. at
  • State v. Terrell 753 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Terrell 753 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Tubbs 747 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Tubbs 747 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    (citations omitted); -34 , -41 (1977) (jurors could infer intent from forced entry and unsatisfactory explanation for entry); and State v. Taylor, 25 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Long 714 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Long 714 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Kozan 706 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Kozan 706 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
    decided after Ellerson , makes clear that “circumstances” need not be shown in all cases involving prior felony convictions.
  • State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
    -96 , -73 (1980); -73 , -40 (App. 1981); Rule 23.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Frustino 689 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Frustino 689 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Gooch 678 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gooch 678 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Thompson 677 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Thompson 677 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    Although we would reject this second issue for the foregoing reason urged by the appellee
  • State v. Mitchell 675 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Mitchell 675 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    the Arizona Supreme Court stated that criminal trespass was not necessarily a lesser-included offense of burglary.
  • State v. Wise 671 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Wise 671 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. at 297 , 660 P.2d at 1224
  • State v. Newell 670 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Newell 670 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Harris 655 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Harris 655 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    “In determining whether an offense is a lesser-included offense, the test is whether the more serious offense cannot be committed without necessarily committing the lesser.”