DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hunter, 433 P.2d 22.

56 citing documents.

  • State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (modifying conviction for tampering with a witness to attempted tampering with a witness); –78 (1967) (modifying conviction to second-degree burglary because insufficient evidence established elements of first-degree burglary).
  • State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    (convictions of armed robbery modified to robbery); , (conviction of voluntary manslaughter modified to involuntary manslaughter); , (conviction of first degree burglary modified to second degree burglary); State v. Rowland, 12 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Greene 811 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Greene 811 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
    C. TORCIA, WHARTON’S CRIMINAL EVIDENCE § 79 (14th ed. 1985).
  • State v. Sterling 713 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Sterling 713 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    (time of day in which burglary takes place is an actual element of the crime and is important in the determination of defendant’s punishment).
  • In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 61935-4 669 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 61935-4 669 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    Here several sufficient additional factors are present: appellant’s unexplained presence at the locker with his hand extended into it, , his attempt to flee upon discovery, see State v. Talley, supra; his unsatisfactory explanation for the entry, , the entry by forcing a lock, see State v. Rodriguez, supra, and State v. Hunter, supra.
  • State v. Brydges 653 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Brydges 653 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Blankinship 622 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Blankinship 622 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the state with reasonable inferences resolved against appellant, , supports a finding that the truck’s value was no less than $61.
  • State v. Scigliano 583 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Scigliano 583 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1978
    §§ 13-621(A), 13-1645,13-1716, 13-1717(A); , State v. Eliason, 25 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Cook 564 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cook 564 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 560 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 560 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1977
    There are several sufficient additional factors in this instance: potentially unsatisfactory explanation for entry, , entry by manipulation of the door lock, State v. Hopkins, supra.
  • State v. Cook 547 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Cook 547 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    While it is true that all the elements of the offense charged, here first degree burglary, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, , it is not true that the corpus delicti is equivalent to the essential elements of first degree burglary.
  • State v. Eliason 544 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Eliason 544 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    State v. Rowland, 12 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Zaragoza 537 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Zaragoza 537 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    Because the time of day is important only to a determination of the degree of the offense and only goes to the issues of punishment, , defendant cannot be heard to complain if he is convicted of a lesser charge.
  • State v. Torres 510 P.2d 737 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Torres 510 P.2d 737 Ariz. 1973
    in which we reduced a first degree burglary conviction to second degree and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
  • State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Jones 509 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Jones 509 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Quila 502 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Quila 502 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Quandt 495 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Distinguished State v. Quandt 495 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    which is distinguishable from the instant case.
  • State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
    In this regard, this case presents a
  • State v. Loggins 479 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Loggins 479 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Mooney 477 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Mooney 477 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Rowland 471 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Rowland 471 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Bridges 468 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Bridges 468 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    wherein it was held that a burglary having been proven, the defendant must be found guilty of a daytime burglary (second degree) unless the evidence is sufficient to sustain a clear finding of a nighttime (first degree) burglary.
  • State v. Bloom 464 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Bloom 464 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1970