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. Routhier, 669 P.2d 68.

96 citing documents.

  • 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