Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Routhier, 669 P.2d 68.

98 citing documents.

State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Devorce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Devorce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Consistent with these Fifth Amendment rights, “a defendant’s silence at the time of arrest cannot be used against him as inconsistent with testimony given at trial.” (citations omitted).
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.”).
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
On appeal, this court looks for “substantial evidence from the entire record from which a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 39 (1998) (state of mind may be inferred from behavior); (“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.”).
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morago Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Indeed, “[c]riminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence,” and neither the court nor jury need 4 STATE v. MORAGO Decision of the Court distinguish between circumstantial and direct evidence.
State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶13 Second, intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, as a defendant’s state of mind “is seldom, if ever, susceptible of proof by direct evidence.” (“Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
Defendant’s conduct and comments are evidence of his state of mind.”
State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
[murder] and an intent to commit the crime.”
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See 9 generally § 13-202; Bridgeforth (charge of scheme or artifice to defraud requires state to prove defendant knowingly obtained benefit by false pretense and intended to defraud others); P.2d 68 (1983) (conviction for attempted murder requires evidence showing intent to commit crime).
State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Routhier, 137 * P.2d 68 (1983).
State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Levato 905 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Levato 905 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Distinguished State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Conde 846 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Conde 846 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Stabler 783 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Stabler 783 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. MacGillivray 785 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. MacGillivray 785 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
the defendant made a partial statement and then invoked his Miranda rights.
State v. McKinley 755 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. McKinley 755 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Tamplin 706 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Tamplin 706 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Burton 697 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1985
State v. Burton 697 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1985
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-88515 678 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1984
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-88515 678 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1984
(emphasis added) This court recently noted, , that Edwards indicates that “[t]he assertion of the right to counsel is an expression by the accused that he is not competent to deal with the authorities without legal advice,” in contrast with the assertion of the right to silence which is “merely an expression of the accused’s desire t